UNBIASED - November 6, 2025: Democrats Win All Major Races, Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Trump's Tariffs, and What We Know About Payment of SNAP Benefits. PLUS Does New Rule Ban LGBTQ Individuals From Loan Forgiveness? And More.

Episode Date: November 6, 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: Major Results of This Weeks Elections Around the Country (1:18) What We Know About When November SNAP Benefits Will Be Paid (9:26) Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Trump's Tariffs; Here's Everything You Need to Know About the Case, Arguments, and What Might Happen (15:01) Quick Hitters: FAA to Reduce Flights Friday, Dick Cheney Dies, Nancy Pelosi Won't Seek Re-Election, Shutdown Breaks Record for Longest Shutdown, Two Men Arrested in Connection with Harvard Explosion, IRS to Dismantle Direct File (33:06) Rumor Has It: Does New Rule Ban LGBTQ Individuals from Loan Forgiveness? Did ICE Throw Tear Gas Outside of an Elementary School? Did ICE Arrest a Teacher at a Daycare? (36:22) Critical Thinking Segment (44:01) **Time stamps above are subject to change due to ad slots. SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, November 6th. Let's talk about some news. But before we do, just as a quick reminder, or just kind of in case you've missed the last few episodes, within the last week or so, week and a half, we have covered the situation with SNAP benefits. We've covered Texas suing the makers of Tylenol, the new House report on Biden's use of the auto pen, why insurance premiums are set to rise in 2026. That's something a lot of people are talking about. New press restrictions in the West Wing of the White House, Trump threatening military action in Nigeria, and much, much more. So just be sure to go through the last two or three episodes. If there's a particular story that you're wanting to learn more about, chances are I have already

covered it. And if it's not in the last two or three episodes, it may be in an episode from the last few weeks, just make sure to kind of go through. In all of the show notes of each episode, I do list out every individual story that I cover. So, you know, let's say something made news two weeks ago. You can always go to one of my episodes from a couple of weeks ago and just check the show notes of those episodes. More likely than not, I covered it. So I just want to put that out there. But now, without further ado, let's get into today's stories. Starting with this week's elections. So on Tuesday, voters across the country, they cast their ballots for both state and federal elections. Let's talk about some of the biggest election results, starting with California's

Prop 50. California voters passed Prop 50, which essentially allows the state legislature to reds districts to keep up with red states that are doing the same. Now, we went into pretty significant detail a couple of weeks ago on October 23rd. So I don't want to get too into the weeds with it. But I do think it's important to talk about and just kind of recap because a lot of people were confused about this. Basically, congressional maps dictate the boundaries of the various districts within a state. All states have these maps. All states have districts. Typically, the state legislature draws the maps for each state, but it can also be drawn by other parties and we'll get into that in a minute. The way that these maps are drawn will typically determine whether a state has

more red districts or more blue districts. And the maps are typically drawn every 10 years with every federal census. But this year, certain red states like Texas, Ohio, Missouri, they decided what they were going to do was redraw their maps early. And they can do this, right? There's nothing that forbids them from doing it in state law, federal law, in their state constitution. They can do that. By redrawing the maps, they can redraw the boundaries in a way that the district boundaries in a way that gives them more red districts ahead of next year's midterm elections and therefore increases the number of Republicans representing their state in Congress. So for example, Texas redrew their maps to add up to five Republican congressional seats in

26. It's not guaranteed that all five districts will actually flip as intended, but lawmakers drew the maps in a way that would heavily favor that outcome. So like I said, certain states are allowed to do this whenever they want. It depends on the laws in the state as well as their state constitution, Texas, Ohio, Missouri, these are states that are allowed to do it. But in California, back in 2010, voters passed a constitutional amendment that actually changed. their state constitution that took the power of drawing these district maps away from the state legislature and instead gave the power to an independent commission. And this was meant to take the partisanship out of it, right? Because if an independent commission is doing it, then the legislature's

not going to draw the maps in a way that favors one, one party or another. At least that's the theory. And when California voters passed this constitutional amendment, all was going to and fine. The Independent Commission just went ahead and took over the job of drawing the maps. But this year, California wanted to keep up with the red states that are red drawing their maps. To try to combat the additional red seats that are being added hypothetically, assuming it goes to plan in these red states, the California legislature wants to redraw the congressional districting map in California to add more blue districts. But because voters in California gave that power to the Independent Commission back in 2010, the legislature basically had to ask

voters to give them their power back via Prop 50. So now that Prop 50 has passed, the legislature can now enact the map that they already drew in anticipation of Prop 50 passing and therefore potentially add up to, I believe it's five congressional blue seats in next year's midterm elections. Notably, California Republicans have since filed a lawsuit to block this proposition. The lawsuit argues that the efforts to, you know, temporarily dismantle this independent commission and enact a new congressional map via the legislature are unconstitutional. So we'll have to see what happens with that, but for now, now that Prop 50 has passed, California is free to enact that new map. Okay, so in New York, let's switch states. Self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist

Zohran Mamdami beat former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo for mayor of New York City. Momdani ran on a platform of making New York City more affordable by freezing rent for rent-stabilized departments, building more affordable housing units, making city buses free, offering free child care for children aged six weeks to five years, and implementing city-owned grocery stores. He also ran on raising the corporate tax and taxing the wealthy, the 1%, as he calls it, to be able to sort of implement those other measures that would help with affordability. He also promised to take on Trump, which includes making New York City, quote unquote, Trump proof. Making New York City Trump proof includes ensuring immigrants are protected by strengthening the city's sanctuary city status, getting ice out of all city facilities, and ending cooperation with ice.

It also includes making New York City an LGBTQIA plus sanctuary city and protecting reproductive rights. So those are sort of the main issues that MomDani ran on. With just over 93% of the votes in, MomDani secured 50.4% of the votes. Cuomo secured 41.6%. And Republican Curtis Sleewa secured just 7.1%. In New Jersey, so we'll go next door. Democrat Mickey Sherrill won the governor's election. She received 56.2% of the vote. Cheryl is a former Navy helicopter pilot and federal prosecutor who centered her campaign on protecting abortion rights, expanding affordable housing, and improving public education. A Democrat also won the governor's race in Virginia. Democrat Abigail Spanberger received 57.4% of the votes and ran on lowering the cost of living, protecting women's reproductive rights, and reinforcing community safety.

Spanberger is Virginia's first female governor. Virginia also held its state attorney's general race with Democrat J. Jones beating the Republican incumbent. Now, this was a closely watched election as well because Jones had recently been involved in a leaked text message scandal. So in 2022, Jones sent text messages directed, he sent them to someone else, but the text were talking about then Republican, house speaker Todd Gilbert, and those text messages suggested that Gilbert should be shot in the head and also wished that Gilbert's wife would have to watch her own children die in her arms because that way, according to Jones, maybe the Gilberts would change their views on gun control. Gilbert did admit to those text messages and he did apologize to the Gilbert family.

So because of that scandal, this was a closely watched election. And then finally, the last sort of big result out of Virginia, Democrats maintained the majority in their state legislature. They even flipped 13 seats. So overall, Democrats won the major races of the night this week. Exit polling showed that voters went to the polls with worries about the economy, as well as discomfort with the state of the country. Okay, let's do a relatively quick snap update. So over the course of the last few weeks, we've talked a lot about SNAP, everything from what snap is to what the fight is about, the administration agreeing to pay out partial benefits as of Monday. And in Monday's episode, we talked about the fact that a court had ordered the

administration to make a decision on what it was going to do about SNAP benefits. The court said that the administration is under an obligation to pay benefits, but whether the administration simply just uses what it has left in its contingency fund or taps into some additional funding somewhere else is up to the administration. And as we also talked about, the administration ended up saying, okay, we'll go ahead and exhaust the contingency fund, but that only gives us about 50% of what we usually pay out. So recipients should expect to receive roughly half of what they usually receive for any given month. Now, keep in mind, the court had told the administration that if it decided to just simply exhaust the contingency fund and not tap into any other source of

funding, it would, the administration would have to pay out the benefits by Wednesday. But it's now Thursday. Benefits have not yet been paid. So here is what we know at this point. One day after the administration filed that court filing on, so that was on Monday that it filed the court filing saying that it would pay November benefits with what was left in the contingency fund. President Trump wrote on True Social that SNAP benefits actually would not be sent out as long as the government was shut down. And that post sparked some confusion. So then later in the day, press secretary Caroline Levitt told reporters, quote,

the administration is fully complying with the court order. I just spoke to the president about it. The recipients of these SNAP benefits need to understand it's going to take time. to receive this money because the Democrats have forced the administration into a very untenable position. End quote. Now, remember that court order said that as of Wednesday, those benefits had to be paid. So according to Caroline Leavitt, the administration was going to fully comply with the court's order. Now, the thing is, we don't know exactly when those benefits will paid out. What we do know, though, is that it will likely take some time. And what we mean, you know, we don't know if that's, if that's

days, if that's weeks, we don't know. But definitely if the administration files on Monday saying they're going to pay out the benefits, the likelihood of those benefits being paid by Wednesday is slim. Because the way that it works is this. Based on the funds that the government has available, the individual states will need to calculate how much each SNAP recipient will get. Okay, because it's not the usual allotment because the government isn't providing 100% of the funds that it typically, you know, gives. So they have to do this calculation, this new calculation based on new guidelines that are provided by the government based on the funds available. Then the states need to send those amounts to the EBT processors. The EBT processors are the ones that load the EBT cards with the federal funds once they

receive those federal funds. And then once those EBT cards are loaded, that's when the recipients can use them. So step one is the government providing states with guidelines based on the funding available. And that has already been completed. The guidelines were released to the states yesterday. Step two is the states now use these guidelines to calculate the benefits owed to each recipient. Step three is the states submitting those amounts to the EBT processors, and then step four is the EBT processors loading the cards. And again, this could take weeks for the states to calculate the new amounts. It's a whole process. It's not an easy process. It could definitely take time. We just don't know how much time. Now, the Agriculture Department, which is the

department that runs the SNAP program, has said that recipients will get more money than originally anticipated for November. The administration previously estimated about 50% of the usual funds. Now the USDA is saying that that number will be closer to 65%, meaning a family will now, or an individual, the SNAP recipient, will now get 65% of what they typically receive in a month as opposed to the original estimation of 50%. So a family of four will receive about $646 for the month. We don't know exactly what caused the change, but the DOJ did call it an error that it worked to fix as soon as it was discovered. But that is the extent that we know about you know, the miscalculation and why that number changed. The new rate was actually disclosed

in a court filing just last night. So we'll wait to see when November benefits are ultimately dispersed, but that is what we know at this point. Let's take our first break of the episode here. When we come back, we will dive into the tariff case at the Supreme Court. I will warn you, it is dense. So use this time to kind of refresh, digest everything we just talked about. And when we come back, we'll dive into that tariff case. Welcome back. The justices will soon decide whether Trump's broad imposition of tariffs was within his authority. There is a chance the court strikes down Trump's tariffs entirely. There's also a chance the court leaves them in place. So let's run through a bit of background here as well as the

arguments on both sides. And then we'll talk about how the justices were feeling during oral arguments yesterday and what it could mean for the outcome of the case. Just as a warning, I gave you this morning before the break. I'm going to give it again. This story is a little dense. So as always, I will do my best to make this as digestible as possible. There are a lot of laws that we have to talk about. Obviously, just kind of legal stuff in general is a bit dense. But if you get lost somewhere along the way, don't worry about it. Maybe just rewind and relisten at certain parts to try to keep up. But I'll do my best to kind of simplify this as much as I can. As we know, earlier this year, Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on all countries across the globe. The first set of

tariffs, these are often called trafficking tariffs, they specifically targeted China, Mexico, and Canada. And the reason that they're called trafficking tariffs is because these three countries were specifically targeted with these tariffs due to them not doing enough to stop the flow of fentanyl into the United States. So that's, that was the first set of tariffs. The second set of tariffs, often called reciprocal tariffs, is basically set up as a two-tiered structure. So the first tier is this baseline 10% tariff, which applied universally or applies universally to imports from all countries, with the exception of Canada and Mexico, because of a prior trade agreement that we have with those two

countries. The second tier of the structure is what the administration calls country-specific reciprocal tariffs. These tariffs are based on our trade deficit with any given country. Okay. So a trade deficit happens when a country's imports exceed its exports. So if we bring in more from, let's say, China than we send to China, which we do. We bring in more from China than we send to China. We have a trade deficit with China. And basically what the administration did to calculate the tariff on each country is it calculated the trade deficit that the U.S. has with that country and divided it by our imports from that country. So for example, our trade deficit with China is roughly $285 billion. In 2024, the U.S. imported $439 billion worth of Chinese goods. When you divide these two numbers,

you get roughly 65%, 65% was the quote unquote reciprocal tariff that the administration was going to charge China. So just to be clear, Mexico, Canada, and China saw country-specific tariffs related to fentanyl trafficking. All 185-ish countries and territories across the globe saw a 10% baseline tariff. And then there are roughly 60 countries that have this country-specific reciprocal tariff on top of that 10% baseline tariffs. Trump implemented these tariffs under what's called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or the IEEPA. You are going to hear me say the IEEPA a lot.

The IEEPA is a law that gives the president, the authority, to regulate international commerce in response to a national emergency. Under the IEPA, the president can regulate imports or exports from or to foreign countries if he declares a national emergency in response to a, quote, unusual and extraordinary threat. So in this case, Trump declared a national emergency to address trade deficits. He said that the large trade deficits that the United States has with these other countries is an extraordinary and unusual threat to the national security and economy of the United States and therefore, by declaring an emergency, he can impose these tariffs under the IEPA to regulate

international commerce with these foreign countries. And perhaps he can, but here's, we don't know if he can, perhaps he can, we don't know yet, but here's the thing. No president has ever implemented tariffs under the IEPA. Historically, the IEEEA. Historically, the IEEA. P.EPA has been used to freeze assets or impose sanctions on specific countries or individuals, not just set these blanket tariffs. And that is why this case is at the Supreme Court. Various small businesses that are affected by these new tariffs as well as various states sued the administration arguing that the president does not actually have the authority under the IEPA to implement them, nor does he have authority under the Constitution.

Before we get into both sides of this fight, though, I want to be clear about the question for the court. The question that the justices must answer is this. Does the IEPA give the president the power to impose tariffs? Or does the authority to impose tariffs belong to Congress under the constitution. That is the question here. So the states and businesses argue that the authority to impose tariffs belongs to Congress, not the president. More specifically, they say not only is the constitution clear that Congress has the sole power to impose and collect taxes and duties, but the IEPA was never meant to let presidents impose tariffs and the IEPA doesn't mention tariffs or taxes at all, and no president has ever used it to impose tariffs before.

In their view, the phrase regulating imports, which is what the IEPA allows, is not the same thing as taxing imports. And if it were, it would, as the plaintiffs argue, completely change how hundreds of other laws have been interpreted for hundreds of years that also use the phrase regulating imports. Now the plaintiffs also argued that using the IEPA this way would raise serious constitutional issues. So first they say that it would violate what's known as the major questions doctrine. That doctrine basically means that if a president wants to take an action with major economic or political consequences, something that affects the entire country, Congress has to clearly give them that power in writing. It can't just be assumed

from vague language in a statute. Congress has to explicitly say, you have X power. And then second, the plaintiffs argue that allowing Trump to impose tariffs under the IEPA would violate the non-delegation doctrine, which is the idea that Congress can't just hand over its core powers to the president or any other branch of government for that matter without clear limits. So in this case, they argued that letting the president decide when, how much, and for how long to tax imports would effectively give the executive branch unlimited control over something the Constitution specifically reserves for Congress. And Congress has not put clear limits on that power. Therefore, this giving Trump the power to impose tariffs, which is Congress's role,

would violate the non-delegation doctrine. Now, on the other side of the debate, okay, the Trump administration argues that these tariffs were completely legal under the IEPA. They say that Congress gave the president in the IEPA the power to regulate importation and that tariffs are one of the most common ways to do that. In the administration's view, when Congress said the president could regulate imports, that naturally included the ability to impose tariffs, since tariffs are a traditional tool for controlling how and when goods enter the country. The administration also pushes back on the idea that this gives the president, allowing the president to impose tariffs under the IEPA

gives the president unlimited power. The administration points out that the IEPA, along with another law called the National Emergencies Act, already limits what a president can do with national emergencies. For example, national emergencies automatically expire after one year unless that are renewed. And there are several reporting and oversight requirements that that let Congress monitor and even override the president's decision. So this isn't an unlimited authority. Congress has placed limits on the president's authority. And then as for the major questions doctrine, the administration argues that that doctrine doesn't apply here because it only comes into play when a law is vague or unclear. But the IEPA is straightforward and clearly gives the president the

authority to regulate imports. So again, those are the arguments on both sides, but what the justices have to answer here is, does the IEPA give the president the authority to impose tariffs or not? And keep in mind, there are two key underlying questions here. So number one is, does regulation of importation equate to the imposition of taxes, or are they two different things? And then, the second question is, are tariffs taxes? Because the Constitution is clear that Congress has the sole power to tax. The president doesn't have that power. So if tariffs and taxes are the same thing, then that power cannot just be delegated to the president. The administration says that tariffs and taxes are different, but the plaintiffs argue they are the same thing. So just keep

those underlying issues in mind as we go through the justices' comments and concerns. Overall, during oral arguments, the justices did express skepticism on both sides, but it seems as if they are more skeptical of the administration's arguments. And we'll take this justice by justice. We'll start with the court's three liberal justices, and then we'll make our way to the more conservative justices. So Justice Kagan was all about emphasizing that under the Constitution, it is Congress, not the president that has the power to impose taxes and regulate foreign commerce. Her concern was that

allowing the president to use the IEPA to impose tariffs would effectively let the executive branch take over powers that explicitly belong to Congress. Justice Sotomayor questioned the administration's arguments that tariffs are not taxes. She pointed out that tariffs generate revenue from American consumers and businesses, which is no different than a tax. Because remember, a tariff is something that the American importer pays to the Treasury Department. It is not paid by the foreign nation. If we put a tariff on China, China does not pay that tariff. It is the American importer who is importing Chinese products that pay that tariff. So Sotomayor was emphasizing that, you know, this is a tax in her view. And the taxing power is a congressional power.

And she says that just simply calling it something else, calling it a tariff doesn't change that reality. Justice Jackson focused on the history and purpose of the IEEPA. She noted that the IEEPA was actually specifically written to limit presidential power after earlier presidents had abused similar authority under a previous law. The IEPA was almost like a clarifying law, if you will. So she found it a bit inconsistent. interpret the IEPA as giving the president, you know, what she called nearly unlimited economic power. Now moving to the court's conservative justices. Justice Gorsuch, he had two big constitutional concerns with the administration's arguments. His concerns were more about

how far the president's power could go if Trump's interpretation of the IEPA were accepted by the court. So he asked whether under the administration's logic, Congress, could just hand over all of its responsibilities to the president. Gorsuch was essentially warning that if the court allowed this kind of power grab to stand, it could set a precedent for future presidents to claim even broader control over areas that the Constitution clearly gives to Congress. And the second thing he was concerned about is he warned that giving the president such broad powers under the IEPA could lead to what he called a one-way ratchet problem.

So basically, once a president gains this kind of authority, it's hard for Congress to take it back because the president has the power to veto any bill that Congress passes. So if Congress passed a law to take back, you know, a power that it gave to the president, the president has the power to veto that law. So in Gorsuch's view, the president's power could just keep expanding with every administration because of the president's veto power. Justice Barrett questioned whether there was any precedent in history or law where the phrase regulate imports or regulate importation was used to give a president taxing authority.

She seemed doubtful that the IEPA should be, read that broadly. And she noted that previous uses of the IEPA typically involved sanctions on specific countries or industries in response to a national emergency, not a blanket tariff on imports. But Barrett also voiced skepticism on the other side, too. She wondered how the IEPA can allow the president to shut down all trade with another country in response to a national emergency because it does, but not allow the president to impose tariffs, which in her view is a much smaller and less significant action. Justice Kavanaugh also questioned this idea. He called it a, quote, odd donut hole, end quote, in how the IEEPA might function. Another concern that

Justice Barrett had is what would happen if the plaintiff's arguments were accepted by the court and the tariffs were deemed to be invalid. And in response to that, the plaintiff suggested reimbursements. But Barrett noted that it's just to reimburse for all of the tariffs that have already been paid would be what she called a complete mess. Justice Samuel Alito, he seemed more sympathetic towards the administration's arguments than the other justices. He asked the plaintiffs whether in a situation where there was a situation where there was

an imminent threat of war with a powerful enemy whose economy was heavily dependent on U.S. trade, the president could, under the IEPA, impose a tariff as a way to avoid war. And Alito seemed to believe that in that case, the president would have that power. And he kind of implied that if he would have the power to impose tariffs in that situation, why wouldn't he have the power to impose tariffs now under the same law? So, like I said, while the justices expressed skepticism on both sides, it did seem as if the justices are more skeptical of the administration's position. As for what we can expect from here, we don't know when they'll release their decision. It could be weeks.

It could be months. But once they do release their decision, it could go a few different ways. So for one, the justices could say, yeah, the president does have authority to impose tariffs under the IEPA and therefore uphold the tariffs. However, that avenue is not looking likely at this point. Another possibility is the justices say, no, the president doesn't have the authority to impose tariffs under the IEPA, and therefore, we're going to strike the tariffs down. A third possibility is that the justices say, look, we don't think the president has the authority to impose tariffs under the IEPA, and therefore we're going to strike down the tariffs, but we're not going to require that the tariffs that have been paid thus far be reimbursed. This is just kind of going to be a proactive decision, and, you know, presidents can't use the IEPA to impose tariffs in the future, but what's done is done, and we're going to let that go. The court might also get a bit more specific and actually say when a president has the authority under the IEPA to impose tariffs and when he doesn't.

So there are certainly multiple ways that this can go. Once we have a decision, I will, of course, update you. I warned you that that was going to be a bit of a dense explanation. So let's take a second to digest all of that. We'll take our second break here. And when we come back, we will finish this episode with quick hitters, rumor has it, and critical thinking. 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. I won! Boating will begin when passenger fisher is done celebrating. 19 plus Ontario only. Please play responsibly.

Concerned by your gambling or that if someone close to you, call 1-8665331-2-60 or visit Connexonterio.com.com. That's annoying. What? You're a muffler. You don't hear it? Oh, I don't even notice it. I usually drown it out with the radio. How's this? Oh, yeah. Way better. Save on insurance by switching to Bell Air Direct and use the money to fix your car.

Bell Air Direct, Insurance, Simplified. Conditions apply. You know what'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 TELUS.com slash iPhone 17 Pro on select plans. Conditions and exclusions apply.

Welcome back. Let's do some quick hitters. The FAA says 40 major airports around the country. We'll see a 10% reduction in flights starting Friday if the government remains closed. The cuts are meant to keep airspace safe amid staffing shortages, given that air traffic controllers have been working without pay since October 1st, and many have been working six days a week with mandatory overtime. And a lot of them are calling out of work. The list of airports that will see the cuts include airports in Atlanta, Dallas, New York City, L.A., Miami, and many others. Former Vice President Dick Cheney died this week at the age of 84. Per of the family's statement, his cause of death was complications from pneumonia and cardiac and vascular disease. Cheney served as vice president from 2001 to 2009 under President George W. Bush. Nancy Pelosi announced she will not seek re-election upon the expiration. of her current term. Pelosi has served in Congress for the last 40 years, and during her time became the first and only female speaker of the House of Representatives. In a statement, she said in part,

quote, I have truly loved serving as her voice in Congress, and I have always honored the song of St. Francis, Lord, make an instrument of thy peace, the anthem of our city. That is why I want you, my fellow San Franciscans, to be the first to know I will not be seeking re-election to Congress. end quote. The current shutdown is now the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. On Wednesday, the shutdown entered its 36th day, which broke the previous record set during the 2018-2019 shutdown. Two men have been arrested in connection with the explosion at Harvard Medical School on Saturday. The FBI's Boston Field Office announced that 18-year-old Logan David Patterson and 20-year-old Dominic Frank Cardoza were arrested and charged with one count of conspiracy

to damage by means of explosive. Notably, the government did not seek detention of the suspects. According to prosecutors, the suspects set off a Roman candle firework around 245 a.m., which went off inside of a wooden locker in the fourth floor research lab. Video footage caught the men entering the building by climbing scaffolding on the side of the building. And the Trump administration said the IRS's direct file platform will not be available during next year's filing season. The direct file platform, which has been running for two filing seasons

now, was introduced by President Biden, and Republicans had criticized the platform calling it a waste of taxpayer money because free filing programs already exist from private companies, but supporters of the platform liked how easy to use it was. So following an announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Besant to the private sector can do a better job than the government when it comes to offering filing platforms and therefore they are going to cut it to save taxpayer dollars per a report from the IRS roughly 296,000 taxpayers submitted accepted returns for the 2025 tax season through direct file, which was up from the roughly 140,000 submitted accepted returns in 2024. Okay, time for rumor has it. This is my weekly segment where I address recent rumors submitted by

all of you, and then I either confirm them, dispel them, or add contacts. So today we have three. First one. Rumor has it that the Trump administration issued a new rule barring LGBTQ plus individuals from receiving student loan forgiveness. This claim, which has spread widely across social media, is false, and it comes from a misreading or a misinterpretation of the rules language. So to be clear, this new rule does not target LGBTQ. individuals. Rather, it applies to employers that are seeking eligibility for the public service loan forgiveness program and are engaged in what the administration calls illegal activity. So in other words, this rule gives the education department the power to exclude organizations

that have a quote unquote substantial illegal purpose from the public service loan forgiveness program. Now, in practice, what this means is that if an organization has what the administration considers to be a substantial illegal purpose, that organization's employees will not be eligible for loan forgiveness because the organization itself will not be eligible for the public service loan forgiveness certification. So now we have to talk about what the administration considers to be a substantial illegal purpose. Per the administration, activities indicative of a substantial illegal purpose include aiding and abetting violations of federal immigration laws, supporting terrorism or engaging in violence for the purpose of obstructing or influencing federal government policy,

engaging in the chemical and surgical castration or mutilation of children in violation of federal or state law, engaging in the trafficking of children to another state for purposes of emancipation from their lawful parents in violation. of federal or state law, engaging in a pattern of aiding and abetting illegal discrimination, and engaging in a pattern of violating state laws. So for purposes of this rumor, we really just need to focus on the chemical and surgical castration or mutilation of children part. Okay. The phrase chemical and surgical mutilation refers to the administration's definition as set forth in a prior executive order, and that definition is as follows. The phrase chemical and surgical mutilation means the use of puberty blockers to delay the onset or

progression of normally timed puberty and an individual who does not identify as his or her sex, the use of sex hormones to align an individual's physical appearance with an identity that differs from his or her sex, and surgical procedures that attempt to transform an individual's physical appearance to align with an identity that differs from his or her sex. Or, the that attempt to alter or remove an individual's sexual organs to minimize or destroy their natural biological functions. That is the administration's definition. And that definition applies to all individuals under the age of 19. So if we piece all of this together, this new rule allows the education department to deny PSLF certification for organizations that are involved in the aforementioned

treatments and procedures for individuals under the age of 19. Therefore, if an individual works for such an organization, that individual may not be eligible for public service loan forgiveness because their employer won't have the requisite certification. So again, just to be very clear, this rule does not target LGBTQ individuals. It targets organizations and employers and can potentially affect employees of those organizations. Also note that that rule has not yet taken effect. It is set to take effect on July 1st, 26. Second one, rumor has it, that ice threw tear gas outside of a Chicago elementary school.

This is another one making the rounds on social media, so let's add some context. The truth is, I'll just tell you right off the bat, that ice threw tear gas across the street from an elementary school, not right outside of the school. But a first grade teacher in Chicago said she had to shut her. her windows while some of her students were coughing, crying, and panicking because of the tear gas. Now, what we know is that ICE was conducting a raid on a grocery store across the street from that school. During that raid, ICE agents threw tear gas canisters into the grocery store parking lot. Meanwhile, at the school across the street, this first grade teacher had opened her windows to, as reported by the Intercept, quote, let in the unusually warm October

breeze, end quote. The teacher claims, per the intercept's reporting, that the tear gas from the grocery store parking lot made its way across the street towards the school where she was holding class and she was forced to shut her windows while her students felt the effects of the gas. I am unable to confirm or deny the authenticity of the teacher's claims, but that is what we know at this point. If more develops, I will let you know, but that's just what we know as of now. And then last one, rumor has it, that ICE agents stormed a daycare in Chicago and dragged a teacher out in front of her children.

Again, this is another one, making its rounds on social media. The way that this one is worded is a little bit tough, so I'm going to say, let's add some context to it. On Wednesday, ICE agents did, in fact, enter a daycare facility and remove a woman who they later placed in handcuffs. it has not been definitively confirmed whether that woman worked at the daycare but a DHS official said that it appears that was the case and then an eyewitness which we'll talk about in a minute said or I guess referred to this woman as a teacher now it's unclear exactly why this woman was detained but DHS officials say that she is here illegally from Columbia and what we know at this point from the DHS is that the woman and one other individual fled an ice vehicle pursuit following an attempted traffic stop and the two individuals ran into the daycare one of the one of the people who fled locked the door behind them the the woman who was

ultimately detained did not and that's how ice agents were able to detain her in eyewitness said that he had gotten to the school around 655 a.m. to drop his kid off and parked in the parking lot while he waited for the school to open. Around 7.05 a.m. he saw a black car pull into the parking lot followed by an SUV, but he said neither car was driving, quote, particularly fast, end quote. He then said that the black car came to a stop. A teacher got out and ran into the school through two sets of doors. And that's when an ice agent grabbed one of those doors as it was shutting and held it open as other agents entered the school. He then saw two agents grab the woman's arm and drag her outside where she was handcuffed and put into the SUV. Apparently, this all happened as parents

were arriving to drop their kids off. Per the school's website, the school opens at 7 a.m. So this happened about five minutes after opening per that eyewitnesses account. All right, let's finish this episode with some critical thinking. For those that are new here, this is just an exercise to, you know, get our brains going, get us to think a little bit, challenge our own opinions a little bit. We're constantly told how and what we should think. And this is just a reminder that we are very capable of thinking for ourselves. And also a reminder that sometimes it's okay to challenge our existing opinions. So for today's segment, we're just going to piggy back off that last rumor has its story and talk about the ice detaining the woman at the daycare.

The first set of questions is for those of you who support immigration enforcement actions, regardless of where they take place, whether they take place at a school or a church, it doesn't matter where they take place. You support these immigration enforcement actions. If a citizen child happens to witness their parents' arrest inside of a daycare or inside of a church, does the government have any obligation to protect that child from, from any sort of trauma? Or do you consider this to be, do you consider emotional fallout just simply the cost of enforcing the law? And then second, if the same logic were applied to other agencies,

like let's say the IRS or the FBI entered schools to detain parents in front of children for fraud or tax evasion, would you be okay with that or would you consider that to be government overreach? And if you find that the two situations are different, what makes them different in your view? The next set of questions is for those of you who oppose immigration enforcement actions in all capacities. If an officer refuses to enforce a law that they personally disagree with, could that set a precedent for selective enforcement across other issues too? So I'm going to give you a hypothetical. Would it be acceptable in your eyes for an officer to refuse to enforce child trafficking laws

simply because they disagree with how those laws are written? And if not, where are you drawing that line? What justifies an officer enforcing the law in one scenario but not in the other? And then finally, this last set of questions is for those of you who support immigration enforcement, but only in limited situations. And we're going to assume those limited situations are what are called sensitive locations like churches and schools. So this question assumes that you support immigration enforcement actions, but not in these quote unquote sensitive locations. In your opinion, what qualifies as an acceptable setting for enforcement and what doesn't? And then if ICE can't make arrests in these quote unquote sensitive locations, like I said, schools, churches, how do you suggest the agency handle cases where suspects are deliberately seeking refuge in those places to avoid arrest?

Should those individuals just automatically be protected despite breaking the law or how does the government go about that? That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. have a fantastic weekend and I will talk to you again on Monday.