UNBIASED - October 27, 2025: SNAP Funding Set to Expire Nov. 1, Anonymous Donor Behind $130M Military Donation Revealed, Shutdown Fairness Act Fails, What We Know About a Third Term for Trump, and More.

Episode Date: October 27, 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: Shutdown Fairness Act Fails in Senate But So Do Two Other Measures That Would Pay Federal Employees (0:12) Anonymous Donor Behind $130M Military Donation Revealed; Can the DoD Accept Such a Large Donation? (6:52) SNAP Funding to Expire November 1; Here's What You Need to Know (15:33) Will Trump Seek a Third Term? Here's What He Says and What the Constitution Says (27:58) Democrats on House Committees Investigate Trump's $230M Claim Against DOJ (32:04) Quick Hitters: Trump Undergoes MRI Scan, Republicans Urge Leaders to Consider ACA Credit Extension, Two U.S. Navy Aircraft Go Down in South China Sea, New Poll Shows Tightening Gap in NYC Mayoral Race, Judge to Issue Ruling on Tyler Robinson's Court Attire (36:45) Critical Thinking Segment (39:36) 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 Monday, October 27th. Let's talk about some news. We're going to start with the Shutdown Fairness Act because it's getting quite a lot of attention after failing to make it to a vote in the Senate last Thursday because it would have been the first step in allowing federal workers, members of the military, and federal contracts. to remain paid during the shutdown. But here is what most people don't know. On Thursday, there were

actually three pieces of proposed legislation that all sought to pay federal workers during the shutdown. Two were sponsored by Democrats. One was sponsored by a Republican. All three of those measures failed. But for whatever reason, the shutdown Fairness Act is the only one getting attention. So let's take this one at a time. We'll start with the two Democratic sponsored bills because those were motioned for first. And then we'll talk about the Republican sponsored bill. The first Democratic bill was called the True Shutdown Fairness Act. It was proposed by Senator Van Hollen. The second Democratic measure was called the Military and Federal Employee Protection Act. This was proposed by Senator Gary Peters. Van Hollen's true. true shutdown Fairness Act would have paid all federal workers, members of the military, and federal contractors during the shutdown. This also included employees that were furloughed. So it included both employees that are still working and those that have been furloughed. Van Hollen's bill also prevented the administration from attempting mass layoffs during the shutdown.

So it would have put an end to the reductions in force that we've been seeing. The Military and Federal Employee Protection Act, which is the other Democratic measure, would have allowed all military service members, federal employees, and contractors to receive the pay that they have missed so far during the shutdown, but it wouldn't have paid government employees beyond the date of the bill's enactment. So it was more of a retroactment. active measure. A Republican senator, Ron Johnson, objected to both requests to immediately consider and pass each of these Democratic-sponsored bills. Now, something to note about the Senate

is that there is a procedural shortcut called unanimous consent. Unanimous consent is when the Senate agrees to a motion, a bill, or some other action without a formal roll call vote. because not one senator objects. However, if even one senator objects, the request fails and the motion or the bill, whatever it is, has to go through the full process, which typically means there's a debate on the measure, a potential filibuster, there's a cloture vote requiring 60 votes to send the bill to the floor, et cetera, et cetera. Unanimous consent is typically used for uncontroversial measures that'll likely have the support of all senators or for measures that are time sensitive and, you know, need to move quickly through the Senate. So these two Democratic senators made

motions to immediately consider and pass each of their bills by unanimous consent. Senator Johnson, the Republican, objected to both, which meant that they immediately failed. Johnson argued that the bills were too complex to approve by unanimous. to misconsent. Shortly after that, Johnson sought to pass his own bill, and this is the Shutdown Fairness Act. The Shutdown Fairness Act would have paid active duty members of the military, certain federal contractors, and those federal employees that are required to work during the shutdown. These employees were known in the bill as accepted employees. So Johnson's bill would not have paid those employees that have been furloughed amid the shutdown. However, Johnson did offer to discuss expanding

his bill to include furloughed workers, and he asked Democratic Senator Van Hollen if Van Hollen would agree to that. Van Hollen wouldn't commit and instead noted how important it was that the administration not be allowed to lay off additional workers during the shutdown. This is something that Johnson's bill did not address. Johnson's bill did not prohibit layoffs during the shutdown like Van Hollins did. But the main Democratic criticism of Johnson's bill was that it gave too much discretion to the administration over who gets paid during the shutdown. And that's because the way Johnson's bill was written is that it basically gives the head of each federal agency the power to determine which employees within that agency,

qualify as quote unquote accepted employees and are therefore entitled to pay. So the Democrats didn't necessarily like that it's giving the executive branch authority over who is covered in this bill and who is not. Now, another difference with Johnson's bill is that he did not seek unanimous consent. Instead, he went through the normal procedural process, which requires 60 votes to end a debate on a bill and send it to the Senate floor for a vote. So when it came time for that vote, the vote was 54 to 45. Three Democrats joined all Republicans, but Johnson still did not have the 60 votes that he needed to get that bill to the floor where it could have passed with a simple

majority. So Johnson's measure also failed. And again, the Democrats' main argument against Johnson's bill was that it gave the executive branch too much discretion over who gets paid. during the shutdown and who doesn't. It's possible that Johnson's Shutdown Fairness Act gets brought to a vote again, but for now, that is where things stand. So I had a lot of requests to talk about the shutdown Fairness Act naturally, right, because that's what all of the outlets were reporting on. But I think it's really important to note that on that day, on Thursday, there were actually three different measures that all sought to pay federal employees one way or another, and they all failed. So hopefully that gives you a bit more context and understanding there.

Speaking of federal pay, though, on Friday, news broke that the Defense Department had accepted a $130 million anonymous gift to help pay military salaries during the government shutdown. One day prior, President Trump did say while speaking from the White House that a friend of his had called him and said that he'd like to contribute any. shortfall that the government has with the military because he loves the military, loves the country, and wants to help. Trump went on to say that the friend had sent a check on Thursday for $130 million and that that money would be going to the military.

Then on Friday, the Pentagon confirmed its acceptance of the anonymous donation and now everyone's talking about it. So before we talk about the donor and the legalities of such a donation, it's important to note that it costs approximately $6.4 billion to pay U.S. troops every two weeks. So $130 million, while it's, you know, it's a lot of money to most of us, it doesn't even cover two weeks' worth of salary for troops. Nonetheless, this anonymous donor has been identified by the New York Times as Timothy Mellon. Timothy Mellon is an heir to the Mellon banking fortune, which we'll talk about in a minute. He's also a major donor to the Republican Party.

Just to add a little more context here and touch on the Mellon family for a second, the patriarch of the Mellon family, Thomas Mellon, he came to the United States in the 1800s from Ireland. He was a lawyer, he was a judge, he was an entrepreneur in Pennsylvania back in the day. People were a lot of things. And he founded a banking company around 1869 called T. Mellon and Sons Bank. Thomas Mellon ended up giving the bank to his son, Andrew Mellon, who changed the name to Mellon National Bank. Andrew Mellon, and by the way, you may know of the Mellon family name from Carnegie Mellon, also related. But anyway, Andrew Mellon was very successful. He actually ended up becoming the Treasury Secretary of the United States in 1921.

He served in that position for roughly 11 years until 1932. And yes, that meant that he was the Treasury Secretary during the Great Depression. Timothy Mellon, the donor, this guy who gave $130 million, that is the grandson of Andrew Mellon. According to Forbes, Timothy's net worth is somewhere between $700 million and $4 billion. But Timothy actually made a name for himself outside of the main banking business of the family. He founded or in some cases acquired rail and transport companies. and that's where he made most of his money. He's been described as a reclusive billionaire.

He primarily lives in Wyoming. He keeps a fairly low profile. In recent years, he has spent tens of millions of dollars supporting political campaigns, including President Trump's, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s and various Republican congressional candidates as well. So that's a little bit about the man behind the donation. Now, let's talk about the legalities, or I guess, legalities and precedent. So the Pentagon has certainly accepted gifts in the past, but this donation differs in that

it is meant to directly fund the salaries of U.S. troops and it's being given by a private individual. So a private individual funding, you know, the salaries of U.S. troops is unprecedented. When it comes to gifts, there are actually rules built into federal law that, allow the Defense Department or branches of the military to accept outside help so long as the help fits within strict ethical guidelines. There's something called the General Gift Acceptance Authority, which is what the Pentagon said that it accepted Mellon's donation under. The General Gift Acceptance Authority states that the Defense Department can accept, hold, administer, and spend any gift or donation on the condition that the gift or donation be used

for the benefit or in connection with the establishment, operation, or maintenance of a school, hospital, library, museum, cemetery, or other institution or organization under the jurisdiction of the defense secretary, which presumably includes the military. In other words, federal law allows the Defense Department to accept voluntary gifts of money from either private individuals, corporations, or organizations for the benefit of the department or its components. As I said, there are limits and rules, right? So for instance, gifts can't be accepted if they're offered to influence a certain action. For gifts to organizations or units within the Defense Department, there has to be a proper review. There has to be documentation. The gift has to align

with that organization or units mission or policy. Generally speaking, though, the federal government does have broad authority to accept gifts such as this one. Now, some legal experts are citing the Constitution and the Anti-Deficiency Act. So let's talk about those one at a time. Under the Constitution, specifically the appropriations clause, Congress controls how public or government money can be spent. In other words, money can only come out of the U.S. Treasury if Congress has authorized it. So some legal experts argue that the Defense Department doesn't have the authority to spend donated money as government pay without Congress approving it first. But the Congressional Research Service says that the appropriations clause doesn't apply to money that is not in the Treasury.

So if a donation never becomes, quote-unquote, public money, government money, the clause might not apply, meaning the Defense Department may not need congressional approval. On the other hand, critics argue that if the Defense Department uses a private donation as a direct substitute for congressional funding, sort of as a workaround, and it's used to pay military salaries, it's effectively. functioning as public money and should be treated as such. Because if it's functioning as public money and not being treated as such, not being, you know, not requiring congressional approval, it could undermine the whole purpose of the appropriations clause, which is to ensure that Congress controls the purse strings of the federal government. So that's the constitutional argument. Then you have the Anti-Deficiency Act, which prohibits the government from spending money before Congress appropriates it or from supplementing appropriations without congressional authorization.

So if the Defense Department uses private funds to pay troops during a shutdown when no appropriation is available, some say that that looks like spending money before Congress has approved it, which could be unlawful. But others argue that if the donation remains separate from federal appropriations, and is treated purely as private money, then perhaps the Defense Department doesn't need to wait for Congress to legally use it. And keep in mind, too, there's also an exception in the Anti-Deficiency Act for emergencies that involve the safety of human life or the protection of property. So perhaps paying troops could qualify under that exception. But the debate really comes down to, is this donation simply a private gift helping troops during a shutdown? or is it effectively replacing Congress's constitutional role in funding the military?

Because this situation has never really happened before, the law isn't clear and we don't have all the answers. And that's why you're seeing these arguments, you know, on both sides of this issue, though no one really has the definitive answer. No one really knows which argument is right. Let's take our first break here. When we come back, we'll talk about the upcoming expiration of SNAP funding. and more. Most of us will deal with hair issues at some point, and there are so many products out there, it's hard to know which ones are actually going to help, but if I could recommend one to look into, it's Nutriful. It's physician formulated, clinically tested, and even recommended by dermatologists. I've personally dealt with hair shedding in the past, and I know a lot of

people who have dealt with both hair shedding and hair thinning. I always recommend that they try Nutriful. Nutriful is the number one dermatologist recommended hair growth supplement brand, trusted by over 1.5 million people. You can feel great about what you're putting into your body since Nutraful hair growth supplements are backed by peer-reviewed studies and NSF Contents Certified, the gold standard in third-party certification for supplements. See Thick or stronger, faster-growing hair with less shedding in just three to six months with Nutraful. For a limited time, NutriFle is offering my listeners $10 off your first month's subscription and free shipping when you go to Nutraful.com and enter the code unbiased. Find out why Nutraful is the best-selling hair growth supplement

brand at Nutraful.com spelled N-U-T-R-A-F-O-L dot com promo code unbiased. That's Nutraful.com promo code unbiased. Welcome back. Starting November 1st is likely that roughly 42 million low-income people will not receive their SNAP benefits. That is unless Congress acts before then. So, for some context, SNAP stands for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It is a federal program that is administered by the Department of Agriculture or the USDA, and it provides food purchasing assistance to low-income individuals and families. These benefits are delivered through what are called electronic benefit transfer cards or EBT cards, which can then be used by recipients to buy SNAP eligible groceries. On average, recipients receive $187 per month,

which is about $6 per day. Now, each month, how this works, how the process works, is states determine eligibility and monthly allotments for SNAP recipients. The states then send an electronic file with recipient information and benefit amounts to the EBT contractor or processor. The EBT processor then loads the benefit amounts onto each recipient's EBT card account, and from there, the recipients can use their cards at authorized stores to buy eligible food items. Because states rely on these vendors to accurately load benefits on time, any delay can disrupt when cards are funded. And we'll talk more about that in a minute. But Congress appropriates a certain amount of money to the USDA each fiscal year. Some of that appropriated money is specifically

appropriated for SNAP because the USDA is the agency that administers SNAP. Once the USDA has its annual funding, it then distributes the SNAP money to the states each month. And then, the states then work with the EBT processors we just talked about to load the benefits onto eBT cards for eligible recipients. But here's where the issue lies. Snap needs about $8 billion every month to send to the states for money to be put on people's cards. Okay, so the amount that each state gets will vary because it depends on how many people are enrolled, their benefit levels, cost of living, et cetera, but the federal SNAP program dishes out in total roughly $8 billion across the country every month. There is a backup fund, okay? This is known as the contingency fund.

The contingency fund is meant to provide extra support during emergencies like natural disasters or unexpected spikes in enrollment, unpredictable emergencies. Currently, the contingent, contingency fund has about $5 to $6 billion in it. So that's not even enough to cover a full month of benefits, but it's something. However, even if it was enough to cover a full month of benefits, the USDA released a memo on Friday saying that it would not be using its contingency fund to pay November SNAP benefits. Now, of course, if the contingency fund isn't being used and the government is shut down and there's no funds left, that means that SNAP recipients will not receive benefits, right? They won't have any, they won't have any funds on their EBT card to go out and get

their groceries. So Friday's memo from the USDA reads in part, quote, due to congressional Democrats' refusal to pass a clean continuing resolution, approximately 42 million individuals will not receive their SNAP benefits come November 1st, end quote. The memo goes on to explain that contingency funds are not available to cover regular benefits because they're reserved for emergencies. It says, quote, contingency funds are not legally available to cover regular benefits. Snap contingency funds are only available to supplement regular monthly benefits when amounts have been appropriated for but are insufficient to cover benefits. The contingency fund is not available to support fiscal year 2026 regular benefits because the appropriation for regular benefits

no longer exists. Instead, the contingency fund is a source of funds for contingencies, such as the Disaster Snap Program, which provides food purchasing benefits for individuals in disaster areas that can come on quickly and without notice. For example, Hurricane Melissa is currently swirling in the Caribbean and could reach Florida. Having funds readily available allows the USDA to mobilize quickly in the days and weeks following a disaster. And quote. So that's what the memo says. Now I want to talk about this for a minute. The USDA is saying that they legally cannot tap into the contingency fund for regular SAP benefits because the contingency fund is specifically for unpredictable disasters or for

when monthly benefits have been appropriated by Congress, but there are not sufficient funds to those monthly benefits. And the USDA is basically saying that neither of those situations are present here. This isn't an unpredictable disaster and Congress has not yet appropriated regular monthly benefits for this fiscal year and ran out for the last fiscal year and therefore we can't use the contingency fund to supplement. I will say that I'm a little bit confused on this. First of all, because the law is not well settled on this with a lot of things that we're talking about lately, but also because there was a USDA memo that it was an internal memo and it was dated September 30th, so not long ago, about a month ago. And it said, quote, congressional intent is

evident that SNAP's operations should continue since the program has been provided with a multi-year contingency funds that can be used for state administrative expenses to ensure that the state can also continue operations during a federal government shutdown, end quote. That language leads me to believe that the USDA, at least at one time, thought that the contingency fund could be used in the event of a shutdown. Again, the law does not explicitly tell us what happens in this scenario. There is no definitive court ruling that we can go back to that says whether the fund can or can't be used in this situation. So now you have people arguing on both sides. supporters are arguing that the contingency fund was created for moments exactly like this

when millions of families are at risk of losing food assistance because Congress hasn't acted, whereas opponents argue that budget law is clear enough in that the USDA is not allowed to replace missing appropriations with emergency reserves and must instead save those funds for true disasters. So what is a disaster, right? Is the question, an emergency so as to constitute dipping into the contingency fund? Or is this not a unpredictable disaster like, you know, a natural disaster, a hurricane, and therefore it can't be used? So that's really the main question here. Now, another option is to move money around. It does not seem like the administration is considering this option for SNAP, though. We know that recently the administration

found about $8 billion in unspent R&D money within the Defense Department to pay troops. And the administration also, and this wasn't as widely reported on, but it's using unspent tariff revenue to fund the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children. This is a program that serves about 6.7 million low-income women, infants, and children specifically. So it's different than SNAP. But the administration is shifting funds around to be able to support that special program despite the shutdown. So because of that move, policy groups are now arguing that the same discretion could or should

be used to keep the SNAP program running. On the flip side, though, the USDA and the Office of Management and Budget say that statutory rules for SNAP don't allow the same type of budget. shuffling for regular benefits. And this is where the funding types matter. Okay. So Snap is mandatory spending while WIC, the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, Children is discretionary. Because WIC is discretionary, its funding can be more easily shifted around when necessary, though it's also more vulnerable to cuts every year, because it's discretionary and not mandatory. So it's kind of pros and cons there. With Snap, the situation

is the opposite. Because benefits are guaranteed for anyone who qualifies, once Congress appropriates the money, the USDA has to pay out whatever amount of money is needed. But that also means the USDA can't spend money before Congress appropriates the funds. So ironically, the program, meant to be the most guaranteed, which is snap, can actually become the least flexible in a shutdown if Congress has not approved the money yet. And that is what's at the center of this debate. Another component to all of this is that the USDA's Friday memo also addressed the state's willingness to cover the cost of benefits and be reimbursed later. And the USDA shot down that option as well. So the memo says, quote, unlike other reimbursable programs, SNAP allotments are fully

federally funded. There is no provision or allowance under current law for states to cover the cost of benefits and be reimbursed. And quote, the memo then concludes by stating that the USDA has notified states that they have to hold off on sending November benefits files to their eBT processors until further notice, explaining that, holding the issuance files prevents states and EBT processors from loading November benefits onto household cards and protects existing balances. So basically, to kind of just wrap all of this up, unless Congress passes additional SNAP funding before the end of this month, SNAP recipients will not receive their November benefits, unless, of course, certain states use state funds to cover the costs, despite being told that they

would not be reimbursed by the federal government. If some states decided to do that, it would likely be a handful of them because, again, they're risking not being reimbursed, right? We could also see lawsuits stem from this. We could see states go ahead and, you know, take a chance and cover the costs of the SNAP benefits and then go ahead and file a lawsuit against the administration and see of courts rule in their favor. So there's a few different things that can happen here. There have been a few bills introduced in Congress within the last week or so to provide funding for SNAP, but it's unclear whether those will pass, let alone pass in time. And it's also possible maybe a standalone SNAP bill, you know, doesn't pass by the end of this month, but maybe it passes in a week or two.

If that's the case, benefits would just be administered late. Okay, we're going to take our second and final break here. And when we come back, we'll talk about a possible third term for Trump, something we've talked about many times, but we're going to talk about it again because people are talking about it again. We'll also talk about Trump's claim for $230 million against the DOJ and do an update there. And then we'll finish with quick hitters and critical thinking. You know what's better than the one big thing? Two big things. Exactly. The new iPhone 17 Pro on TELUS is 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. A possible third term for Trump is making news again. I feel like I've covered this quite a few times now, but you all want me to talk about it again. So let's do it. The 22nd, well, let me start by saying this. The reason that people are talking about it again is because Steve Bannon made a comment during an interview saying that Trump has plans to assume a third terms. Now, you know, naturally outlets are talking about it. Reporters are asking Trump about it and he's giving his answer. So first I want to start by saying that the 22nd amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1951. It says that a president is limited to two terms. Okay. So specifically it

says no person shall be elected to the office of president more office of the president more than twice. if we take the language of the amendment literally and we analyze it, right? It says no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice. So some people are theorizing that someone like Vice President Vance or Marco Rubio or some other Republican will run at the top of the ticket in 28 with Trump as vice president. And then once the new president is elected and inaugurated, assuming it's a Republican, that person will hand the office off. to Trump, assuming Trump is the VP on the ticket. Because in that case, Trump wouldn't have been elected to the office of the president more than twice, right? Is this a possibility? Sure. I mean,

the Supreme Court would probably step into that fight if it ever arose, but I suppose it could be attempted. This is what's more important, though. Today, when Trump was asked by a reporter about the possibility of running his vice president in 28 and whether it is his legal position, or the White House's legal position, that he would be able to do that. He responded, quote, yeah, I'd be able to, I'd be allowed to do that, but I wouldn't do it. It's too cute. I would rule that out because it's too cute. I think the people wouldn't like that.

It's too cute. It wouldn't be right. End quote. So he explicitly ruled that out. When asked whether he'd be willing to challenge the possibility of a third presidential term in court, he responded that he hasn't really thought about it and that the Republican Party has some really great people. When asked about those great people, he responded, quote, well, I don't have to get into that, but we have one of them standing right here, referring to Marco Rubio. He said we, we have

JD, obviously. The vice president is great. I think Marco's great. I'm not sure anyone would run against those two. I think if they ever formed a group, it would be unstoppable. End quote. So Trump did in fact rule out the possibility of running his vice president in 2008. He did not. explicitly rule out challenging a third term as president. As we talked about, the 22nd Amendment is clear that he could not do that. As for the ratification of a constitutional amendment, which is another method and is what would have to happen to essentially undo the 22nd Amendment, it's virtually impossible. We know that a constitutional amendment was introduced earlier this year to allow for three presidential terms. Nothing came of it. For a

constitutional amendment to be ratified. Not only would two-thirds of both the House and the Senate need to be on board, but also three-fourths of the state legislatures would need to ratify the change. That is 38 states. That is extremely unlikely with such a controversial issue. And just to give you some numbers in context, there have been more than 11,000 constitutional amendments proposed since 1788 and only 27 of those amendments have actually been ratified with 10 of those 27 being ratified all the way back in 1791 in the Bill of Rights. So in the last 234 years, there have only been 17 amendments ratified. And that just goes to show you how hard it is to actually ratify a constitutional amendment. Okay. Last story of today's episode before we get to

quick hitters in critical thinking. It's an update to Thursday's episode. Democratic members of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees have opened an investigation into President Trump's $230 million claim against the DOJ. The leading members of these committees are arguing that the request might violate the Constitution's domestic emoluments clause, which prohibits a president from receiving payments beyond their salary. So in a letter to President Trump, the lawmakers wrote quote, quote, the founders feared presidents like you might one day be tempted to use their powers to steal U.S. taxpayer funds. That's why they enshrined a very simple rule in the Constitution, which is called the Domestic Emoluments Clause. As president, you may not receive any payment from the federal government or any of the states except for your salary, which is currently fixed by law, at $400,000 per year.

end quote so when we look at the text of the domestic emoluments clause what it says is this the president shall at stated times receive for his services a compensation which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the united states or any of them and quote so amolument it can refer to financial benefits, compensation. It can receive to perks or advantages or benefits that someone might receive from their office, their position. So what the clause is saying here is that the president cannot receive extra benefits, financial benefits or otherwise, from the federal government or any of the individual states. It is meant to prevent Congress or state governments from influencing the presidency through monetary pressure. Notable, the Domestic Amoluments Clause has rarely been analyzed by the courts, and its application to a claim like the one Trump has against the DOJ has not been settled previously. Past DOJ opinions have

interpreted emoluments pretty broadly covering, again, like I said, both financial benefits as well as just advantages or benefits in general. But again, there is a limited judicial precedent that tells us how the Domestic Amoluments Clause applies in, you know, the real world. supporters of this investigation into President Trump say that such a large payment from the federal government to a sitting president, even if it's framed as compensation for alleged past harms, could be perceived as an unconstitutional financial benefit beyond the president's salary. They argue that the domestic emoluments clause is pretty clear that the president should not personally profit from federal funds while in office. However, others argue that if the compensation relates to legal claims that predate Trump's presidency, and if it's handled through established claims processes, then it might not be considered an emolument at all. They say the clause was intended to prevent gifts, advantages, or influence payments, not to block a president from pursuing legitimate legal remedies that are available to any private citizen. So those are really the main arguments on both sides.

nonetheless the letter to the president argues quote if either of your claims had any merit you could have taken them to court by now and litigated them publicly you did not do that instead you waited until you became president and installed your handpicked loyalists at the doj knowing that you could instruct them to co-sign your demand notes in secret behind closed doors and then you could present the notes to the u.s treasury for cold hard cash courtesy of the american taxpayer end quote The letter ends by requesting that Trump provide the committees with all administrative claims he or his legal representatives have filed, all correspondence with DOJ officials, all correspondence between White House and DOJ officials, and any DOJ memos, legal analyses, or recommendations related to Trump's claims by October 30th. So at this point, lawmakers have simply requested documents and communications. Time will tell whether the White House voluntarily complies. If it does comply, the House committees will have its requested information by the end of the week. If it doesn't, or if the committees believe the administration is withholding certain material, the next step could be issuing subpoenas or holding hearings to question officials publicly. But that's what we're looking at in the short term.

Let's do some quick hitters. President Trump says that he recently underwent an MRI at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center and described the results as, quote, unquote, perfect. When asked why he received the MRI, he told reporters to ask the doctors. The news of the MRI comes after Trump recently went to Walter Reed for a, quote, scheduled follow-up examination, end quote. However, it's unclear at this point whether the MRI was part of that second visit or if it was a separate imaging study. A group of Republican lawmakers is pushing party leaders to address the upcoming expiration of ACA premium subsidies. Some GOP lawmakers are

warning that failing to act may mean Republicans lose complete control of Congress in next year's midterms. Many Republicans have taken the stance that there should be no talks about the tax credits until after the shutdown ends. Others are urging GOP leadership to rethink that. The ACA opened enrollment period does begin November 1st, and this is a key deadline for Congress to reach a deal that would prevent significant increases in health insurance premiums. Two U.S. Navy aircraft, a fighter jet and a helicopter crashed in separate incidents over the South China Sea on Sunday less than 30 minutes apart. The helicopter went down first during routine operations, followed shortly by the fighter jet. All five crew members from both aircraft were rescued and are

reported to be in stable condition. The Navy says the incidents are under investigation, but has not yet released detailed information about causes or conditions. In New York City, a new Suffolk poll conducted Thursday through Sunday shows former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo tightening the gap in the mayoral race. Momdani still holds a 10-point advantage over Cuomo, but that's down from a 20-point lead last month per this new poll. The poll's director noted that Cuomo's biggest gains were among Hispanic voters and independence. And a judge is expected to issue a ruling today on whether the suspect accused of killing Charlie Kirk can wear regular clothes during future court appearances. Tyler Robinson and his attorney's filed a motion earlier this month

seeking an order. Tyler Robinson and his attorneys filed a motion earlier this month seeking an order, allowing him to make all court appearances in civilian clothing rather than his prison uniform and without restraints. Robinson's attorneys argue that the motion is necessary to maintain the presumption of innocence and to avoid any possible prejudicial effect on a future jury. For more quick hitters, make sure you're subscribed to my newsletter. It goes out every Tuesday and Friday morning. It features quick hitters in politics, pop culture, business health, and international news. You can always sign up by clicking the free newsletter link in the show notes and entering your email address. And we'll finish with

critical thinking. For today's segment, we're going to go back to the story about the upcoming expiration of SNAP funding. The first question I want you to think about is it speaks to the separation of powers. So Congress controls federal spending and agencies like the USDA, can only spend what Congress has approved. That is a core design of the U.S. Constitution. But in a shutdown scenario where millions of families could temporarily lose access to food assistance, should the executive branch through the USDA have more emergency authority to step in and protect essential benefits? In other words, should the rules be more flexible during crises? Or is it more important to protect constitutional spending limits, even if that causes hardship

in the short term. Where do you personally draw that line and why? And for the last set of questions, I want you to think about both the benefits and risks of using contingency funding to cover the current snap shortfall. On one hand, the reserve could prevent millions of low-income families from losing access to food assistance. On the other hand, imagine a major disaster like another Hurricane Katrina strikes next week. If the contingency fund were already used to fill the the shutdown gap, there would be no funds available for SNAP families in a disaster emergency. So in a situation where there could be multiple crises overlapping, how should we prioritize the use of limited emergency funds? And if the USDA uses the reserve now and then a disaster

were to hit, who should be responsible for ensuring families still get fed? Is it Congress? Is it the state's private relief organizations? Is it someone else? Try to see where you you stand on that. That's what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. I hope you have a fantastic next couple of days and I will talk to you again on Thursday.