UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (2/20/25): Social Security Checks for 300-Year-Olds? PLUS $5K DOGE Dividend Checks, Trump's IVF, Agency Accountability, and COVID Vaccine Orders, and More.

Episode Date: February 20, 2025

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: Appeals Court Expands Ban on Biden's SAVE Student Loan Forgiveness/Repayment Plan (0:07) What's Going on With the Egg Shortage? Did the Biden Administration Really Direct the Killing of 100M Chickens? (6:21) Judge Rejects States' Attempt to Block DOGE From Accessing Government Departments; Here's What We Know About Musk's Role in DOGE (9:40) Victim’s Family Files Form 95 Against Government After DC Plane Crash (16:42) Trump Administration Revokes Authority for NYC Congestion Pricing Plan (19:06) President Trump Signs More Executive Orders (IVF, Vaccine Mandates, Agency Accountability, and More); Here's What They Say (22:29) Quick Hitters: Sen. McConnell Won't Seek Re-Election, Kash Patel Confirmed, Overdose Deaths Drop (34:50) Rumor Has It: Is the Government Sending Out $5K DOGE Dividends? Are There Really Millions of Dead People Receiving Social Security Checks? (35:42) Listen/Watch this episode AD-FREE on Patreon. 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

Wealthsimple's Big Winter Bundle is our best match offer yet. Get a 2% match when you transfer over an eligible RRSP. For a $50,000 transfer, that's a $1,000 cash bonus. Enough to buy a fancy parka. A ticket to somewhere you don't need a fancy parka. Or just be responsible and top up your retirement fund. Plus, move any other eligible account and we'll give you a 1% match. Minimum $15,000 transfer.

Register by March 15th. Additional terms apply. Learn more at wealthsimple.com slash match. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, February 20th. Let's talk about some news.

Starting off with this new court ruling out of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upholds and actually expands an existing ban on former President Biden's save plan. So there are actually a few things I want to address here. I of course want to tell you why the court ruled the way that it did, but I also want to talk about why we're still seeing these loan forgiveness cases in the courts because I know a lot of people get confused at the fact that the Supreme Court already struck down one of Biden's loan forgiveness plans in 2023, yet here we are still seeing these loan forgiveness plans being implemented and challenged in the courts. So we'll clear that up as well. But first I wanna talk about what the SAVE Plan is.

The SAVE Plan is also called, or it is called, I should say, the Saving on a Valuable Education Plan. And it is an income-driven repayment plan that the Biden administration introduced in an attempt to make student loan repayment more affordable. Income-driven, meaning your monthly student loan payment is based on your income.

Under-save payments for undergraduate loans were capped at 5% of discretionary income. And this was a significant reduction from the 10% previously required. Furthermore, and this is the part that matters most, borrowers with smaller loan balances, so balances $12,000 or less, were eligible to have their loans completely forgiven after 10 years of payments. And then for each $1,000 above that, there was an extra year added.

So if you had $13,000 in loans, you were eligible for forgiveness after 11 years of payments, $14,000 in loans eligible for forgiveness after 12 years of payments, $14,000 in loans eligible for forgiveness after 12 years of payments, so on and so forth. The SAVE plan also included other features like preventing unpaid interest from accumulating, a higher income exemption,

and a provision allowing married borrowers who file taxes separately to exclude their spouse's income from payment calculations. So following the enactment of the SAVE plan, seven states sued the administration, Missouri, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio, and Oklahoma. And the states argued among other things

that the administration had exceeded its authority in implementing SAVE because they argued, the Secretary of Education does not have the authority to actually forgive loans through an income-driven repayment plan. The Secretary can help make repayment easier, but the Secretary can't forgive completely. So upon filing that lawsuit, the state asked for what's called a temporary injunction, which would stop the administration from being able to implement the save plan while the lawsuit was pending. The district court, which is the lowest court in the system,

granted that request in part. The district court basically said, we're going to put on pause the loan forgiveness feature of the plan, but the administration can still implement the other features, like the reduced payment threshold and the bar on interest accrual. From there, both parties actually appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Biden administration appealed because they felt the injunction went too far,

whereas the states felt the injunction didn't go far enough. So in this week's ruling, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals not only agreed with the states, but expanded the scope of the injunction and blocked the save plan in its entirety. Specifically, the court said, we conclude that the district court correctly did not limit its injunction, but erred by not preliminary enjoining the entire rule. The court felt that by not blocking the plan in its entirety would lead to confusion and chaos and that it made more sense to do as it instructed. So what can we expect from here? Well, the Trump administration, which has since been substituted for the Biden administration in this case, can obviously choose to file an appeal and go to the Supreme Court, but I don't

anticipate the current administration doing that. So what will most likely happen is this plan will remain blocked until the district court hears actual arguments on the merits of the case and issues a more final decision. At that point, when the district court issues a decision, the district court can either choose to strike the plan down completely, leave parts of it in effect, or allow it to take effect in its entirety. Then from there, whoever the losing party is can choose to, once again, appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Because remember, the decision we talked about today was simply a temporary injunction. What should happen with the save plan while the lawsuit plays out in court?

At this point, neither the district court nor the 8th circuit have actually heard the merits of the case or issued a final decision on the matter. So that still has to happen. Now, I quickly want to address why the courts are still hearing loan forgiveness cases, despite the Supreme Court striking down Biden's loan forgiveness plan in 2023. The short answer is that the loan forgiveness plan struck

down in 2023 was based on a different law, a different piece of authority. The administration had previously tried to use the HEROES Act to cancel more than $400 billion in loans. The HEROES Act was enacted post-9-11 and said in part that those affected by the national emergency that was 9-11, or actually it was more general language, it said those affected by a national emergency, but in that case, 9-11, it was first responders, families of victims, et cetera, were entitled to loan forgiveness. And President Biden tried to argue that most Americans had been affected by the national emergency that was the pandemic, and therefore the HEROES Act permitted up to $20,000

in loan forgiveness for qualifying individuals. But the Supreme Court said no, the Heroes Act does not authorize broad student debt cancellation. So from there, the administration went back to the drawing board, came up with these other forgiveness plans that are based on different laws, different authority, not the Heroes Act. And now it's up to the courts to decide whether these other laws allow for these other loan forgiveness programs. Okay, let's now move on to the egg shortage. I want to talk about not only why we're experiencing an egg shortage, but also address this claim that the Biden administration directed the mass killing of more than a hundred million

chickens, which is contributing to the shortage. So the main cause of this egg shortage is because of a bird flu outbreak. The bird flu is a respiratory disease of birds, as you might imagine, and it's incredibly contagious and it can be fatal. The current outbreak that we're experiencing right now actually started back in 2022.

And since then, it has affected around 159 million birds in the United States. Naturally, due to the outbreak, there are less chickens, which means less eggs. In addition to the outbreak, though, there's also this unrelated shortage of cage-free eggs specifically. And that's because eight states have laws that require cage-free eggs. The issue with that is that only about 121 million of the 304 million chickens laying eggs nationwide are raised on cage-free farms. So the supply is limited. In fact, to help with the already limited supply amid the bird flu outbreak, Nevada actually just suspended their cage-free law. They're hoping it helps with egg availability in the state, but it's not a guaranteed fix. According to current data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the national average price of eggs has

reached a new high, increasing more than 15% in January from the month before. On average, consumers are paying $4. cents for a dozen of large grade a eggs But these prices obviously vary depending on region and type of egg and all of that stuff I actually went to Trader Joe's the other day I got a dozen eggs for 499 which I didn't think was too bad but because Trader Joe's limits you to one dozen per person because of the shortage I then went to Whole Foods down the street and Whole Foods was out of every brand except for one and I ended up paying $9.49 for that dozen.

So the prices definitely vary widely by type, store, all of those things. But anyway, to compare the current average of 4.95 to the last couple of Januaries, January, 2024, the average price of eggs was around $2.52. The January before that, January 2023, we were almost where we are today at $4.82 per dozen. Unfortunately, we're not likely to see prices come down anytime soon. The outbreak still isn't under control and the Department of Agriculture is expecting prices to continue to increase by another 20% before they start to come down.

So that's what we got going on in the world of eggs. But before we move on, did the Biden administration direct the killing of 100 million chickens as the current White House press secretary stated in a recent press conference? Yes, and it was done per federal regulations. So according to US Department of Agriculture policy, when an outbreak occurs, the whole flock affected has to be killed to prevent the spread of the virus to other flocks. So since the outbreak started in 2022, the USDA has directed the killing of more than 100 million chickens. In fact, as sad as it might be, the chicken killings are still happening today to stop

the spread. So that's what you need to know about the egg shortage and the chicken killing claim. We can now move on to the next story. Some more Doge related news. It feels like we're talking about Doge in almost every episode, which we probably are. This story is another Doge access lawsuit, but I'm also going to tie in what we know about Musk's role in Doge because a lot of people, including myself, are all kinds of confused. We've

obviously talked about the various lawsuits challenging Doge's access to various departments and agencies within the government, but this one specifically was filed by 14 different states against Doge, which is the Department of Government Efficiency. Also, the US Doge Service Temporary Organization, which is the Department of Government Efficiency. Also, the US DOJ Service Temporary Organization, which we'll talk about in a little bit, and President Trump. This particular lawsuit is challenging DOJ's access to not just one department but multiple executive departments. So, the Departments of Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, Energy, Transportation, and

Commerce. Plus also, the Office of Person, energy, transportation, and commerce, plus also the Office of Personnel Management, which is an office within the executive branch. So remember how earlier in the episode in that save plan case, we talked about the states seeking a temporary injunction to block the plan from being enforced while the case plays out in court. That is what the states did here. So the states asked the court for a temporary restraining order, which is basically the same thing as a temporary injunction, to stop DOGE

from accessing, copying, or transferring any data systems within all of the departments that we just mentioned and to stop DOGE from terminating or placing on leave any employees within those departments. Now the thing with injunctions is that in order to be granted, the court has to find that the parties seeking the injunction, in this case the 14 states, have a likelihood of winning the case once arguments are eventually heard and that they will suffer a reparable injury if the injunction isn't granted. In this case, the court denied the request for the injunction, which is a different outcome than we've seen in most of the cases challenging Doge's access, because the judge here found that the states failed to provide evidence of imminent and irreparable harm without the injunction. Notably, the judge did call

into question the actions of Doge but ultimately felt that the requested restraining order was too broad to grant. The judge wrote, quote, "...plaintiff legitimately calls into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight. In these circumstances, it must be indisputable that this court acts within the bounds of its authority. Accordingly, it cannot issue a temporary restraining order, especially one as wide-ranging as plaintiffs' request, without clear evidence of imminent irreparable harm to these plaintiffs." The current record does not meet that standard. Now, part two of this

conversation is that this case raised a lot of questions about Musk's role in Doge. As we know, President Trump has said that Elon Musk is leading Doge even as recent as two days ago. But then an affidavit was filed in this case by the director of the Office of Administration for the White House, and that affidavit, which is a sworn statement, said that Musk is not the U.S. Doge Service Administrator, nor is he an employee of the U.S. Doge Service or an employee of the U.S. Doge Service Temporary Organization. Instead, he said, Musk is just an employee of the White House. He is a senior advisor to President Trump. The affidavit says that Musk holds his position as an employee of the White House as a non-career special government employee, and in

that job he is a senior advisor to the President, and in his role as senior advisor, he has no greater authority than other senior White House advisors. The affidavit says like other senior White House advisors, Musk has no actual or formal authority to make government decisions himself. He can only advise the president and communicate the president's directives. So naturally, a lot of people are like, what? I thought Musk was the head of Doge and and so did I

Unfortunately, I still don't have a clear-cut answer for you So all I can do is tell you what I have gathered and this is going to get confusing Okay, I'm this is fair warning. It is going to get confusing but feel free to listen twice or three times if you have to President Trump signed an executive order recently that renamed the already existing U.S. digital service the U.S. Doge service. The U.S. digital service was in Obamacare office to make government software better and more efficient. By renaming the U.S. digital service the U.S. Doge service, Trump did two things. One he insured funding from Congress since funding for the US digital service already

existed and two he insured its legality for now at least. It can be challenged and possibly a court decides differently, but for now. According to that order though, the purpose of the US Doge service is very similar to the purpose of the prior US digital service, which is to modernize federal technology and software to maximize government efficiency and productivity. But within the US Doge service, Trump created this new temporary organization called the US Doge service temporary organization called the US Doge Service Temporary Organization. It'll terminate on July 4th, 2026.

It's just temporary. It's exactly what it sounds like. It's a temporary organization. And that organization is to be headed by the US Doge Service Administrator and will be dedicated to advancing the president's 18-month Doge Service Administrator and will be dedicated to advancing the President's 18-month Doge agenda. In other words, the U.S. Doge Service is more of a modernizing federal technology and software agency whereas the U.S. Doge Service Temporary Organization, which is within the U.S. Doge

Service, is what we know Doge as, the entity that is identifying misuse, waste, fraud, etc. within the government. But here's where things don't add up, and I warned you this was going to get confusing. The order says that the US Doge service temporary organization is headed by the US Doge service administrator. The affidavit in court specifically says that Musk is not the US Doge service Administrator. But like I said, the President has said as recently as this week that Musk is leading Doge. So I don't get it. It's not often that I say that, but truly I do not know what Musk's true position is. If we get some clarity on it, I will of course update you accordingly. But that is what

we know as of now. And I think this is a good time for our first break since I know I just rattled your brains a bit. So let's take our first break here. We'll hear from some of our sponsors that we love so much and I will be right back. Welcome back. The family of a victim who died in the recent DC plane crash has filed a Form 95, which is the first step in suing the federal government.

Specifically, the form was filed against the FAA and the Army seeking $250 million for wrongful death. So as we know, on January 29th, an American Airlines regional jet and an army helicopter crashed midair near the Reagan National Airport in D.C., killing everyone involved. One of the victims was coming home from a business trip. He leaves behind a wife and three sons who have now filed the first claim against the federal government. A couple of things to note here because I've seen a lot of headlines that say the first lawsuit has been filed against the government stemming from the DC crash and that is not

entirely accurate. What was filed is a Form 95. A Form 95 is a specific form used when suing the federal government under a law called the Federal Tort Claims Act. The claim can be for any type of damage caused by the negligence of a federal government employee within the scope of their employment. So Form 95s can be used in cases of death, but also for property damage and personal injury, just so long as the death, injury, or damage was caused

by the negligence of a federal employee within the scope of their employment. So a Form 95 is filed before an actual lawsuit. It's the first step in a long and complicated process. But now that the Form 95 has been filed, the FAA and Army have six months to act upon the claims. And if they reject the claims or they don't respond after those six months, the plaintiffs then have a right to file a lawsuit in a federal district court at any point in the next two years. The law firm that filed the form on behalf of the family wrote, quote, the $250 million claims are directed against multiple governmental agencies that may be responsible. The National Transportation Safety Board has reported that staffing in the tower of air traffic controllers was not normal at the time of the nighttime collision and that there were communication lapses between the air traffic controllers and the aircraft. The helicopter in the collision was operated by the Army and was manufactured by Stokorski aircraft. It is being reported that the Trump administration began notifying hundreds

of probationary FAA workers late Friday that they are fired and will be barred from entering their offices effective today." End quote. Now it's time for some New York City news. This week, the Trump administration revoked federal approval for the New York City congestion pricing plan that took effect just last month. But what does it mean? We will get there, I promise. First, New York City congestion pricing plan that took effect just last month. But what does it mean? We will get there, I promise. First New York City's congestion pricing plan was the first plan in the country that created a congestion relief zone. Basically anytime a driver drives south of 60th Street in Manhattan between 5 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekends, they're charged $9. Trucks and buses

have a higher rate between $14 and $21. First responders are not exempt from the fees. There are exemptions for school buses, commuter buses, lower income people, and people with medical conditions who can't use public transit. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, or the MTA, said that the funds that are brought in through this plan will be used to improve the existing transportation system in the area, including the subway system, and that tolls would help reduce traffic, reduce pollution, and make the area safer. However, those that oppose the plan cite to the MTA's corruption and say that most of the money likely won't be put back into

the existing New York City transportation system. They say the tolls are unfair and that this toll only encourages people to ride the unsafe subway. Also, there's the argument that many of those that work in the city and commute in for work cannot afford this $9 fee. And those are the ones that are subject to it whereas those that live in Manhattan and probably won't be subject to this fee on a daily basis because they're less likely to drive are actually more likely to be able to afford it. President Trump has said himself

too that the congestion pricing is a burdensome tax on those who have to drive to work in Manhattan and don't have mass transit options available. So we know that Trump opposes the plan, which means the revocation of approval isn't too surprising. But before we get into the reasons why approval was revoked, important to the story is a program called the Value Pricing Pilot Program, or the VPPP, which allows states to apply for the ability to charge tolls for purposes of controlling

congestion. Outside of a VPP exemption or exception, tolls are prohibited on federally funded roads. So to implement this plan, New York had to get this exemption, which it got. But in the recent letter by the new transportation secretary to New York's governor, the transportation secretary says that New York City's congestion pricing plan is actually not eligible for the VPPP exception for two reasons. One, there are no other free alternative roads to take through Manhattan. And two, the tolls were created to generate revenue for the public transportation system, but the toll rates set under VPPP should not

be driven primarily by revenue targets, particularly revenue targets that have nothing to do with highway infrastructure. Importantly, this withdrawal from the federal government doesn't mean an immediate end to the tolls, but the letter does say that the Federal Highway Administration will start working with the New York State Department of Transportation to end them. The MTA, however, has already challenged the revocation of authority, so that may delay things further. Okay, before we move on to quick hitters and rumor has it, let's

talk about some recent executive orders signed by the president Starting with his IVF order titled expanding access to in vitro fertilization Essentially what it says is that within 90 days the assistant to the president for domestic policy must present the president With a list of policy recommendations on protecting IVF access and reducing costs for IVF treatment, both out-of-pocket costs and health plan related costs. So IVF stands for in vitro fertilization. It is a treatment most commonly used to help people experiencing infertility get pregnant.

And the purpose involves extracting eggs from a woman's ovaries, taking a male's sperm, and then fertilizing the eggs with that sperm in a lab. One or more of these fertilized eggs which once they're fertilized they're called embryos are then placed into the woman's uterus and the fetus then hopefully develops in the uterus wood or in the uterus like it would with natural conception. One round of IVF treatment ranges anywhere from $12,000 to $25,000 and insurance does not always cover it.

And on top of that, success is not guaranteed. So in some cases, prospective parents may have to go through multiple rounds of IVF. Now within the last year or so, there has been a bit of controversy surrounding IVF. And the controversy stems from what happens to the embryos that are not placed in a uterus to develop. Sometimes more eggs will become fertilized embryos than a patient will end up using. And the question is, what happens to those embryos? Last February, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are considered children for purposes of wrongful death, which is, that's a civil

claim. It's different than murder and manslaughter, but still that ruling complicated some aspects of the IVF procedure and really got people talking about what potential IVF laws could look like in the future. Following Alabama's decision, the Alabama legislature actually enacted a law protecting the right to IVF, but nonetheless, the decision, you know, out of the court sparked a lot of conversation. And if you want the full details of that case

and what happened there, listen to my February 23rd, 2024 episodes, so February 23rd, 2024. Following Alabama's decision, President Trump said that under his leadership, the Republican party would always support the creation of strong, thriving and healthy American families, and that they want to make it easier for mothers and families to have babies, not harder, which includes supporting the availability of fertility

treatments like IVF in every state in America. Now, I want to draw a distinction between access to IVF and the disposability of unused embryos because Republicans that are against disposing unused embryos don't take issue with the actual access to IVF. Their issue is that you can't dispose of an unused embryo because that could be considered murder. Whereas the arguments on the other side of that are one, it's not murder to dispose of unused embryos and two, that individuals should have the right to do what they want with of unused embryos and two, that individuals should have the right to do what they want with their unused embryos.

So Trump expanding access to IVF isn't much of a surprise considering it's not the access that Republicans take issue with, it's what happens after access to those unused embryos. But anyway, that is the gist of the IVF order. The president will be presented with a list of policy recommendations to protecting IVF access and reducing the costs associated with IVF. Moving on to this agency accountability order titled ensuring accountability for all agencies. First, the policy, remember as with any executive order, there is a policy or purpose and then a directive for executive branch officials to carry out a policy or purpose and then a directive for executive branch officials to carry out that policy or purpose. So the policy set forth in this order

is to ensure presidential supervision and control over the entire executive branch. And to carry out that policy, all executive departments and agencies, including independent agencies, are to submit all proposed and final regulatory actions to the executive office of the president for review before publication in the federal register. It also says that independent agencies are to appoint White House liaisons who will make sure the agency's policies align with presidential priorities. To do this, the president cites to his authority under Article 2 of the Constitution, which vests all executive power in the president. And he makes the argument

that because all executive power lies with the president, all executive branch employees, including members of independent agencies, should answer to the president. The only independent regulatory agency excluded from this order, by the way, is the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee in its conduct of monetary policy. Now, independent agencies are different from executive agencies in that,

while they are constitutionally part of the executive branch, they are relatively independent of presidential control as their name implies. And this is because the president's power to remove heads and members of these independent agencies is limited. So heads and members of independent agencies can only be removed for cause by the president, whereas heads and members of other federal departments and agencies can be removed without cause by the president. And this is in part because Congress created these independent agencies to ensure a nonpartisan result. So in a sense, independent agencies are a bit more insulated than other agencies. Historically, independent agencies have operated and imposed regulations without direct oversight from the president, so this order seeks to

change that. Operations and imposed regulations are usually in line with whatever administration is in office but not subject to the president's oversight. So, this order will almost certainly be constitutionally challenged and the question will come down to what authority does a president actually have over independent agencies? Does Article II grant him full power

or was Congress's intent to shield these agencies from full presidential power? And if it was Congress's intent to shield these agencies from presidential power, To what extent are they shielded? Now before we move on to the next order, I want to quickly address this provision in the agency accountability order that speaks to the president's authority to interpret laws. The order reads, quote, the president and the attorney general, subject to the president's supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations

of law for the Executive Branch. The President and the Attorney General's opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties. No employee of the Executive Branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney This provision raises constitutional questions. The separation of powers goes like this. Congress makes the laws, the court interprets the laws, and the executive branch enforces the laws. So for the president to say that he and the attorney general shall provide authoritative

interpretations of the law for the executive branch is likely an overstep. Interpretation of law, and this is just a fact in the Constitution, is strictly reserved for the courts. Now keep in mind that the order specifically says the president and the attorney general shall interpret law for the executive branch, not the judicial or legislative branches, but still likely unconstitutional will probably be challenged in the courts. Okay, let's take our second and final break of the episode. When I come back, we'll touch on another one, possibly two, of the president's recent orders, some quick hitters, and rumor has it.

Welcome back. Moving on to this next order from the president titled, Keeping Education Accessible and Ending COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates in School. This order prohibits federal funds from being used to support or subsidize any educational institution that requires students to have received a COVID vaccine in order to attend in-person education programs. So first, the policy. The order reads, it is the policy of my administration that discretionary federal funds should not

be used to directly or indirectly support or subsidize an educational service agency, state educational agency, local educational agency, elementary school, secondary school, or institution of higher education that requires students to have received a COVID-19 vaccination to attend any in-person education program." End quote. In line with that policy, the order directs the HHS secretary and the secretary of education to establish compliance guidelines and to provide a plan to end coercive COVID-19 vaccine mandates. Notably, this order only applies to COVID-19 vaccines. So what happened is that during the pandemic, some colleges, universities, K-12 school districts

enacted COVID-19 vaccine mandates. According to an article from US News, which reported on college vaccine requirements for the fall of 2021, more than 680 public and private colleges across the United States required students to get a COVID vaccine to attend. However, since then, many mandates have been lifted. According to No College Mandates, a group advocating for an end to COVID vaccine mandates, 15 colleges and universities still have some requirements for COVID-19 vaccines. I personally was only able to verify 13 of those still requiring the vaccine. The others had limited information or appeared to be strong recommendations of vaccination instead of actual requirements.

And then finally, there are no K through 12 schools in the United States that currently require the COVID vaccine to attend. So there you have it. And now for this final order, yesterday, the president signed an order to ensure taxpayer dollars are not being used to support or incentivize illegal immigration. I'm quoting there, I just didn't say the quotes. First, the purpose. The purpose of the order is to establish that taxpayer resources are used to protect American citizens' interests and not those of illegal aliens. In line with that policy, the order directs the heads of each agency or department to one, identify current federally funded programs that provide financial benefits to illegal aliens

and correct those actions. Two, ensure states don't use federal funds to support sanctuary policies or assist in illegal immigration. And three, enhance eligibility verification to ensure that ineligible aliens do not receive taxpayer-funded benefits. According to the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee, support provided for illegal aliens and gotaways that have entered the United States since January 2021 could cost as much

as $451 billion in federal funds. And just to clarify, Godaways refers to those that the federal government knows unlawfully crossed the border but were not apprehended or sent back. As with any order, we don't know if this one will be upheld if challenged, and that's because the specific law that the order cites to for authority says that it is U.S. policy that aliens within the nation's borders do not depend on public resources to meet their needs but rather rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations. The law in question goes on to say that it is a compelling government interest to remove the

incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits. So if this order is challenged, which I'm sure it will be, it'll be up to the courts to interpret that particular law and determine whether that law provides a proper basis for this executive order. And now it's time for some quick hitters, just a few today, starting with Senator Mitch McConnell, who announced he will not seek reelection when his current term is up in 2027. You may feel like this headline sounds a bit familiar, and that's because he announced last year that he wouldn't seek re-election for his position as Senate leader, and he didn't. The new GOP, Senate GOP leader is

Senator Thune. McConnell has suffered multiple health challenges and falls in recent months, so his announcement doesn't come as too much of a surprise. President Trump's pick for FBI Director McConnell has suffered multiple health challenges and falls in recent months, so his announcement doesn't come as too much of a surprise. President Trump's pick for FBI Director Cash Patel was confirmed by the Senate today. The final vote was 51 to 49. And according to a new CDC report, rates of drug overdoses decreased from 2022 to 2023. The rate of overdose deaths fell from 32.6 deaths per 100,000 people in 2022 to 31.3 deaths per 100,000 people in 2023. And finally, rumor has it, my weekly segment where I either confirm, dispel, or add context

to recent rumors submitted by all of you. Rumor has it that the federal government may be handing out a $5,000 check to every U.S. taxpayer called a Doge Dividend. Let's have some context here. For one, this idea came not from the president himself nor Elon Musk even, but instead from an ex-user named James Fishback. Fishback published this four-page idea earlier in the week called The Case for a Doge Dividend. Fishback is an investor, writer, and entrepreneur.

He's also acted as a public advocate for Doge, but he does not hold a formal position with Doge. So here's what he outlined in his dividend proposal, and then we'll talk about how Musk and the president have reacted to this proposal. So Fishback says Doge has a target of $2 trillion in total savings, and he suggests taking 20% of that target, which would

be equivalent to $400 billion, and returning it to the 79 million U.S. taxpaying households by way of a $5,000 refund check per household. He says the checks could be distributed as early as the summer of 2026, following a thorough review by Doge. He says issuing these checks would encourage American taxpayers to report waste, fraud, and abuse, which would increase the total savings by Doge and the size of the Doge dividend check. He says it would compensate Americans for the egregious misuse and abuse of their hard-earned tax dollars, it would restore the public trust between taxpayers and the government, and it would encourage labor force participation since only those who pay federal income tax in 2025 would be eligible.

Fishback answered the question of whether this proposal would be inflationary. He said no. He said first, Doge dividend checks would be exclusively funded with Doge-driven savings, unlike the COVID stimulus checks, which were financed by deficits. And second, the checks would only be sent to taxpaying households, which he claims tend to save, not spend, the extra money. He cited a 2019 CNBC survey, which found that 71% of Americans who unexpectedly received a $5,000 bonus from work would use it to pay off debt, save for emergencies, or invest in long-term goals like college. When asked whether the proposal would increase the deficit, Fishback again answered no. payoff debt, save for emergencies, or invest in long-term goals like college. When asked whether the proposal would increase the deficit, Fishback again answered no.

He says that because the total cuts would be five times the Doge dividend payout, the government would still be saving money. So following the publication of this proposal, Musk replied on X that he would check in with the president. However, Musk also wrote on X on Wednesday that balancing the budget remains Doge's top priority. As for the president, he acknowledged the proposal dividend while attending the Future Investment Initiative Institute event in Miami this week,

and said the numbers behind the proposal are quote-unquote incredible, but did not indicate whether he was considering the proposal. Rumor has it that tens of millions of dead people, over 100 years old, even up to 300 years old, are receiving social security payments. This is false. While improper social security payments do exist, and we'll get to those numbers in a minute,

the millions of people referenced in the claim is overstated and misrepresents social security data. So let's talk about this. Elon Musk first made the claim during a February 11th Oval Office press conference, and these claims were followed by a series of posts on X, which one of them reads, having tens of millions of people marked in social security as alive when they are definitely dead is a huge problem. Obviously, some of these people would have been alive before America existed as a country think about that for a second

Accompanying this post Musk posted a screenshot allegedly taken from the Social Security database which shows that millions of people over the age of 120 are collecting benefits and The president echoed a similar storyline earlier this week So let's first understand what social security is. Social security provides income for retirees, people with disabilities, and families with a deceased spouse or parent. The central social security database known as NUMIDENT or numerical identification system contains information on every social security number issued since 1936. It contains individuals name,

date of birth, race, gender, place of birth, citizenship status, social security number applications, claim records, death information, and requested changes to social security number information. Now this numidense system, like many other government systems, uses the COBOL programming language which is a 60 year old programming language that is actually used by many US agencies, but it's rarely used today in other contexts because of its weaknesses, namely its date and accuracy,

which we'll talk about. The thing with COBOL is it doesn't have a standardized way to store and work with dates. And I don't wanna get too into the weeds with coding jargon, but what I will say is that dates in COBOL have to be coded to a reference point. The most common reference point is May 20th, 1875 when the standard was created. Anyway, like I said, don't want to get too into the weeds. But what that means is, NUMIDENT defaults missing or incomplete birth dates to these reference points, often May 20, 1875.

So if someone applies for Social Security without a birth date or with incomplete birth date information, they might automatically be recorded as 150 years old in the database. So there are cases where people's ages are incorrect, but there are also cases where death dates have been defaulted as well, and some cases where death information just wasn't even recorded, which means some people are still considered alive in the system despite being dead. A 2023 audit by the Social Security Administration's Office of the Inspector General investigated Social Security number holders older than the Inspector General, investigated Social Security number holders older than 100 years old who did not have death information recorded but were still in the Pneumident system. That audit, which used data updated as of December 2020, found that there

were 18.9 million registrants in the Social Security Administration database born in or before 1920, whose death record information was not properly recorded, meaning these 18 million individuals were technically still recorded as alive in the system, despite being dead. However, that same audit found that approximately 98% of these number holders were not receiving Social Security payments

and had not reported earnings to the Social Security Administration in the last 50 years. Of course, what that means too is the other 2% were receiving payments, which is about 44,000 people. A similar 2015 audit found 6.5 million people with no death information above the age of 112 in New Medent, but that only 266 payments were sent to beneficiaries recorded as 112 or older. Following that 2015 audit, auditors recommended fixes to the New Medent death information records, which included replacing COBOL, but Social Security Administration officials disagreed with that recommendation. Social Security Administration officials said that the time and resources that it would take to correct records for non-beneficiaries would just divert resources from more necessary work and that it wasn't worth it. The most recent Inspector General report from July 2024 on fiscal years 2015 to 2022 found found 71.8 billion in improper payments during those

seven years. However, that same report noted that 71.8 billion, while it sounds like a lot, amounts to less than 1% of the total payments during that time period and were likely due to overpayments to living people, not payments to dead people. And then finally, it's also worth noting that as of September 2015, the Social Security Administration automatically stops payments to recipients over the age of 115. So that's what you need to know.

Yes, there are some improper payments going out to people that are dead, but based off of what we know, based off the information we have, that number is closer to 44,000, not tens of millions. That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. Have a fantastic weekend. I will talk to you on Monday.

["Dreams of a New World"]