UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (2/27/25): Trump's 'Gold Card' Proposal, Supreme Court 'Reverse Discrimination' Case, WH Press Team to Control Press Pool, Trump Recruited as Russian Spy? And More.

Episode Date: February 27, 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: Trump Signs Healthcare Pricing Transparency Order (0:10) White House Press Team Says It'll Take Control of Press Pool (4:54) Trump Proposes $5 Million 'Gold Card' for Investor Immigrants (8:34) Senate Passes Resolution to Revoke Biden's Oil Drilling Rule (12:09) Supreme Court Hears 'Reverse Discrimination' Case (15:23) Supreme Court Announces Cases for Upcoming April Term (19:51) Judge Expands Hold on Government Transferring Transgender Women Prisoners to Male Facilities (23:48) Supreme Court Says Trump Administration Doesn't Have to Pay $2B in Foreign Aid ... Yet (25:42) Quick Hitters: Amy Gleason Named DOGE Acting Administrator, DOGE Employees Resign, House Passes Budget Resolution, Trump Confirms Tariffs, FDA Cancels Flu Vaccine Meeting, Death Row Inmate Gets New Trial, Trump to Revoke Venezuela Oil Agreement, DoD Memo Calls for Removal of Troops With 'Gender Dysphoria' (30:05) Rumor Has It: Wisconsin's Governor Replacing "Mother" With "Inseminated Person?" Was President Trump a Russian Spy in the 80s? (37:36) 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

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, February 27th. Let's talk about some news starting with this Health Care Pricing Transparency Order signed by the President on Monday. This order is called Making America Healthy Again by empowering patients with clear, accurate, and actionable healthcare pricing information. Here's the thing, this order is not necessarily new because it actually builds off of a previous executive order from the president's first administration.

So let's talk about it. As always, the order has a policy and then a directive. So first, it is the policy of the United States to put patients first and ensure they have the information they need to make well-informed health care decisions. The order goes on to explain that the federal government will promote universal access to clear and accurate health care prices and strive to improve transparency requirements. Now for the directive to carry out that policy, the order tasks the Secretary of the Treasury,

Secretary of Labor, and Secretary of Health and Human Services with implementing and enforcing healthcare price transparency regulations within 90 days. Specifically, it lays out the following actions. One, require the disclosure of the actual prices of items and services, not estimates. Two, issue updated guidance or proposed regulatory action,

ensuring pricing information is standardized and easily comparable across hospitals and health plans. And three, issue guidance or proposed regulatory action, updating enforcement policies designed to ensure compliance with the transparent reporting of complete, accurate, and meaningful data. Now, that last action is arguably the most important because as I said in the beginning of the story, the policy set forth in this order is not actually new. Essentially this order is calling for a framework to be made that

will enforce an executive order from Trump's first administration. The original executive order was signed June 24, 2019. It was called Improving Price and Quality Transparency in American Healthcare to put patients first. And that original executive order required hospitals to maintain a consumer-friendly display of pricing information for up to 300 shoppable services. It required hospitals to maintain a machine-readable file with negotiated rates for every single service a hospital provides. It required health plans to post their negotiated rates with providers, post their out-of-network payments to providers, and the actual prices paid for prescription drugs. And it required health

plans to maintain a consumer-facing internet tool, making price information accessible. So naturally you might be wondering, okay, so if the president did something similar in the past, what's the need for the new order? Well, a nonprofit that fights for system-wide healthcare price transparency called Patient Rights Advocate,

released a report in November of 2024 after reviewing 2,000 hospitals and found that only 21% of those 2,000 were in full compliance with the requirements to publicly post a list of prices for common treatments and services. Furthermore, during the Biden administration, 15 hospitals were fined for non-compliance, and as of October, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had issued about 1,600 warning notices to hospitals not in compliance with transparency requirements. And while we're rattling off these numbers,

the new executive order cited in economic analysis from 2023, which estimated the impact of these regulations, if fully implemented, could result in as much as $80 billion in healthcare savings for consumers, employers, and insurers by 2025. The order also cited another report from 2024, which suggested healthcare price transparency

could help employers reduce healthcare costs by 27% across 500 common healthcare services. So that explains a little bit about the purpose of this order. But finally, let's ask the question, will this order be challenged? If you've been around long enough, you know that almost everything that the government does,

regardless of who is in office gets challenged at some point. So here is what we know about that. When President Trump signed the first order in 2019, hospital groups opposed it and unsuccessfully challenged it in court. They argue that the price transparency requirements forced them to disclose private negotiations with insurers

which undermined competition and violated their first amendment free speech rights. However, those arguments, like I said, were rejected by the court. Now, it's possible that a new challenge is brought based on this new order, but the precedent is there to lead us to believe that if another lawsuit was filed,

the administration would likely prevail. Okay, moving on to an announcement made by the press secretary that the White House press team will now determine who is a part of the press pool allowed into the Oval Office and other smaller meetings. Previously, this was something that was decided by the White House Correspondents Association and I'll get into what that organization or association is shortly, but first let's recap the actual announcement and

what got us here. Caroline Levitt, the White House press secretary, said at a press briefing Tuesday that the administration is going to quote, "'Give the power back to the people who read your papers, "'who watch your television shows, "'and who listen to your radio stations. "'Moving forward, the White House press pool "'will be determined by the White House press team.'" Leavitt went on to explain that outlets

that have participated in the press pool for decades will still be able to join press events, but the administration will quote, also be offering the privilege to well-deserving outlets who have never been allowed to share in this awesome responsibility." End quote. Now we have to acknowledge that this announcement comes amid a lawsuit filed by the Associated Press, which we talked about on Monday, but to quickly recap, the AP was banned from the Oval Office after it said it would continue to refer to the Gulf of America as the Gulf of Mexico. The AP subsequently sued the administration, alleging a violation of their first and fifth

amendment rights. But a court just ruled earlier this week that the AP could be withheld from the Oval Office, at least for now. So there is very limited access to certain spaces where the press gets up close with the president. We're talking about Air Force One, the Oval Office, meetings and events that can't accommodate the full press corps. So to be clear, we are not talking about the full press corps here, which is a much larger group of journalists, correspondents, and members of the media that are assigned to cover government activities in White House events and news briefings. We are talking about the smaller

group of media personnel that has traditionally been allowed into these more intimate settings, usually about 13 members of the media. That smaller pool of journalists is what the White House press team will now control instead of the White House Correspondence Association. Before this, the WHCA, White House Correspondence Association, has overseen who makes up the 13-member group of journalists that are allowed into these smaller, more intimate settings. The WHCA is an independent group made up of representatives from many different outlets. In fact, the Association's founding makes for an interesting story. Back in 1914, there was a rumor that a congressional committee was going to select which journalists could attend the press conferences of President Wilson. So a group of journalists got together and formed this

association to avoid the congressional committee taking the reins, and the association has been in the picture ever since. Historically, the association has handled the credentialing process, access to the president, which includes managing the rotating cast of reporters that attends White House events, as well as the physical conditions in the White House press briefing rooms. Now, though, with this announcement from the administration, the association will no longer have control over who has access to the president. This will instead be handled by the White House press team directly. Since this announcement by the White House press team directly.

Since this announcement, the White House Correspondents Association president released a statement and said the board will not assist any attempt by the administration or any other agency in taking over independent press coverage of the White House, saying further that each news organization will have to decide whether or not to take part in the new government-appointed pools. The association's president also called the move by the White House a quote, tear at the independence of a free press in the United States. End quote.

Moving on, on Wednesday, the president said he plans to introduce a new visa called the Gold Card, saying it'll be available for purchase for about $5 million in as soon as two weeks. As the president explains it, a gold card will be a visa eligible to foreigners to purchase for about $5 million. It would hold the same privileges as a green card, and it would be a potential path to U.S. citizenship. Howard Lutnick, the new Secretary of Commerce, noted that applicants would first go through a vetting process. Green cards, officially known as permanent residency cards, allow non-US citizens to live and work permanently in the United States. Green card holders can apply for US citizenship

after three years if married to a US citizen or five years if not. Now there are different types of green cards. There are employment-based green cards and there are family-based green cards. Within the category of employment-based green cards, you have EB1, EB2, EB3, EB4, and EB5 cards. Each card is for a different type of employment. EB1 cards are for priority workers, EB2 cards are for professionals with advanced degrees or

exceptional ability, EB3 cards are for skilled workers and professionals, EB4 cards are for special immigrants, and EB5 cards are for investors. According to Lutnik, the gold card would replace the EB-5 program. The EB-5 program was created in 1992. It offers green cards to eligible investors who invest about a million dollars in a U.S. company that employs at least 10 Americans.

However, there are three key differences between the EB-5 and the gold card that we can see so far. The first is the price difference. Investors can get green cards through the EB-5 program after investing just 1 million, whereas the gold card would cost 5 million. The second notable difference

is the nature of the transaction. With the EB-5 visa, the $1 million is invested into a US company, but that investor still owns that capital and has the potential to earn it back. However, the $5 million for a gold card looks like it'll just be paid to the federal government in exchange for the card. And then finally, it seems like the speed of the process to obtain a gold card would be a bit faster than obtaining a green card through the EB-5 process when and if that gold card is officially implemented. So why the gold card?

President Trump said in part, quote, they'll be wealthy and referring to who would be getting these cards, they'll be wealthy, they'll be successful, and they'll be spending a lot of money and paying a lot of taxes and employing a lot of people. And we think it's going to be extremely successful. Trump noted that he thinks they could sell about a million cards and at the price of five million dollars each that would be about five trillion dollars which Lutnick said will go towards paying off the national debt. And now for the big question, can the president create a gold card? That we don't know. We do know that Congress determines qualifications for

citizenship in the United States but according to the president, congressional authority wouldn't be necessary for the gold card because the gold card is different than citizenship. He acknowledges that the card serves as a quote-unquote very strong path to citizenship, but still says congressional authority wouldn't be necessary. The executive branch does have significant leeway when it comes to adjusting existing visa programs, but so far it's unclear whether the president has the requisite power to create a seemingly new visa program. However, it's also possible that the administration structures the gold card as a replacement and expansion of EB-5, which wouldn't technically be

a new visa program, right? So that could potentially get around that legal obstacle. It is a legal gray area though, no matter which way you look at it though, so we will probably see legal challenges. So I will keep you updated. On Tuesday, the Senate passed a resolution to change a Biden administration rule affecting offshore drilling. The vote was 54 to 44 with three Democrats joining Republicans and the resolution will now head to the House. So in September, the Biden administration passed this rule that said oil and gas companies that produce on the outer continental shelf must produce an archaeological study before they drill or lay pipelines. The purpose of that rule was to protect shipwrecks as well as underwater cultural sites from damage due to drilling. A prior rule required archaeological

studies only when there was reason to believe that an archaeological resource may be present. But that rule didn't always work. In fact, in 2001, a 19th century wooden shipwreck was discovered in the Mississippi Canyon only after ExxonMobil laid a pipeline through it. Exxon did not conduct an archaeological study beforehand because they didn't have the requisite reason to believe that an archaeological resource might be present at the site. So the Biden administration issued this new rule that said regardless of whether there's

reason to believe archaeological resources are present, oil and gas companies have to complete archaeological studies before drilling in the outer continental shelf. Those that oppose the rule say it's too taxing on smaller companies, it's a waste of money and resources, Democrats who voted across the aisle echo similar concerns. One Democratic lawmaker said it feels like there's more paperwork without significant benefit. Democrats don't like red tape any more than Republicans. It doesn't improve drilling or wind or solar or anything out there, it just creates work. On the other side of things things, environmental agencies disagree that the time and money

spent on survey processes is wasteful and unnecessary. The American Cultural Resource Association said the rule requires only a very small amount of time and money that helps prevent the permanent destruction of our history. So the passage of the resolution marked the first Senate action this year under the Congressional Review Act, which allows lawmakers to kill newly issued federal rules by a simple majority. And if you've never heard of the Congressional Review Act, you might be seeing it more in the next few months. It was established in 1996 to reverse the so-called midnight regulations that administrations

pass before they leave office. For clarity's sake, rules don't have to be enacted literally the night before a president leaves office to be considered a midnight regulation. It just has to happen later on in the president's term. For example, this oil drilling rule that Biden's administration imposed was enacted in September, three months before he left office,

but it's still considered a midnight regulation for purposes of the Congressional Review Act. Both the Senate and the House plan to vote on more CRA resolutions soon. In fact, the Senate, Senate Republicans also plan to change several of Biden's other drilling rules in the coming months under CRA jurisdiction. And keep in mind, under the CRA, if a regulation is successfully revoked, agencies cannot use any substantially similar regulation in the future unless authorized by Congress.

So it has wider reaching implications than just the actual resolution that's revoked. So again, this resolution will now head to the House where it's likely to pass due to the Republican majority. All right, let's take our first break here. I will be right back. Welcome back. The Supreme Court heard arguments

in an interesting case yesterday called Ames versus Ohio Department of Youth Services. The issue in this case is whether a majority group person, in this case a straight person, a heterosexual person, has to meet a higher standard than someone in a minority group when it comes to workplace discrimination. So to provide a bit of context here, in 2004, Marlene Ames began working as an executive

secretary at the Ohio Department of Youth Services, which oversees the confinement and rehabilitation of children and teenagers who commit felonies. Ten years after getting the job, she was appointed as a program administrator. And four years after that, now 2018, she was given a performance evaluation where she was found to have met expectations in 10 categories and exceeded expectations in one. So one year after that performance evaluation, she went ahead and applied for a new position as bureau chief. This would have been a promotion, but she didn't get the job. According to her interviewers,

she was rejected for the position because she failed to lay out her vision for the role. But not only did she not get the job, soon after she applied for the new job, her bosses sat her down, removed her from her current job as program administrator, and gave her the option to go back to her old job where she would take about a 50% pay cut.

Notably, Ames did take the pay cut. She did take the demotion. She was later promoted back to a program administrator for a different program. But in light of all of this, in August 2019, she filed a charge of discrimination with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and the Equal Opportunity Commission.

And then in November of 2020, she officially sued her employer for employment discrimination. She argued that she was the subject of discrimination Commission and then in November of 2020 she officially sued her employer for employment discrimination. She argued that she was the subject of discrimination based on her sexual orientation and in support of that claim she noted that her employer hired a gay woman instead of her for the bureau chief role that she had applied for and she was replaced by a gay man in the program administrator role that she was demoted from.

So this case, you know, it's being litigated and on appeal, the Sixth Circuit rules against her. The court acknowledged that her case was an easy one based on the fact that she held her job as program administrator for five years with reasonably good reviews, but then was replaced by a gay man and a gay woman got the job that she had wanted. But the court found that because Ames is straight,

she was also required to show background circumstances that would support the suspicion that her employer discriminated against her. She was unable to show these background circumstances and she ended up losing the case. So Ames then goes to the Supreme Court and here's the question the justices now have to answer. In addition to pleading and proving other elements of employment discrimination, does a majority group plaintiff have to show

background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant, the employer, discriminates against the majority. As for Ames, she argued that requiring a show of background circumstances conflicts with the text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which simply prohibits discrimination against any individual with respect to the terms of conditions of employment due to that individual's sex or other protected characteristic. She argued that by imposing this background circumstances rule,

the Court of Appeals is effectively adding words to Title VII that aren't there. Her employer, on the other hand, argued that the appeals court didn't impose a higher standard simply because aims is straight. Instead, the background circumstances requirement is simply a method of analysis for the courts to use. However, the Supreme Court justices were not buying the

employer's argument. This case will go in favor of Ames. I'm 99% sure. You can't be 100% sure, of course, but I'm almost there. And that is because even Justice Gorsuch said during arguments yesterday that the justices were in quote, radical agreement. And that is because even Justice Gorsuch said during arguments yesterday that the justices were in quote, radical agreement. And that is not something you hear every day on the bench. Not that a unanimous decision from the court is rare, but it's just rarely ever voiced during the actual argument. So we can expect that when this decision comes out, it'll go in Ames's favor,

which will mean that for a majority group person to claim employment discrimination, they are held to the same standard as a minority group person would be. Speaking of the Supreme Court though, it released the cases it'll be hearing in its April session, which starts on April 21st. Just to note some of the more high-profile cases, here they are starting with Kennedy versus Braidwood management, which the court will hear on the first day of its April session. This case centers around an HHS policy that requires health insurance providers to cover the cost of preventative medications and services. Braidwood Management is a company that self-insures its employees and it's taking issue

that self-insures its employees and it's taking issue with this particular requirement because it means that it has to cover preventative treatments for its employees such as PrEP, a drug that effectively prevents HIV infection. Braidwood believes these drugs encourage and facilitate homosexual behavior, which the owner of the company says goes against his religious beliefs. As for the legal basis of the case, Braidwood argues that the Preventative Services Task Force within the HHS, which is who created this policy that requires health insurance providers to cover the costs of preventative medications and services, is in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution because the task force members were not appointed

by the president or confirmed by the Senate. The court below held that the task force did violate the Constitution and the Supreme Court will now have to decide whether to uphold or reverse that ruling. And a quick note here this case was originally called Becerra versus Braidwood management and that's because the HHS secretary under Biden was Xavier Becerra but the current current HHS secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, has now replaced Becerra, so the new case name is Kennedy vs. Braidwood Management. Moving on to Mahmood vs. Taylor, the Supreme Court will decide whether or not it burdens parents' religious exercise when public schools instruct elementary school students on gender

and sexuality without the consent or knowledge from the parents. This case was originally filed in Montgomery County, Maryland, where Superintendent Thomas Taylor and the school board require elementary school teachers to read certain books to their students, some of which discuss gender and sexuality. The plaintiffs include parents of elementary school-aged kids in the county and an association called Kids First. A major issue in this particular case is that the Board of Education did not allow parents

to opt their kids out of this instruction, so the plaintiffs argued that the failure to do so was a violation of their rights to guide the religious upbringing of their children. However, the court below held that parents give up these rights when they send their kids to public schools. So the Supreme Court will have to decide whether to uphold or reverse that ruling, and the court will hear arguments in that case on April 22nd. And the third and final case we'll talk about that will be heard in the court's April session is AJT versus OCO area schools.

This centers around disability-based discrimination in schools and the standard that plaintiffs must meet when they bring a disability discrimination claim in the courts. So under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, people can be awarded for compensation when they prove that a defendant was deliberately indifferent to the rights that protect them from disability discrimination in schools. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act guarantees the right to a free public education as well as individualized education programs called IEPs. We talked about this a couple of weeks ago.

What we didn't talk about though is that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently created a more stringent standard for getting compensation under these laws. Plaintiffs now have to prove that school officials acted with bad faith or gross misjudgment in order to prevail. And the plaintiffs are challenging that heightened standard, which means the Supreme Court will now decide if this bad faith or gross misjudgment standard should be the bar for education-related disability discrimination relief going forward.

Staying on the topic of legal battles, on Monday, a federal judge blocked the transfer of 12 transgender female prisoners to male federal prisons. As we've discussed, the president recently signed an order called Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, which clarified that in government settings there are only two sexes, male and female, and that those sexes are not interchangeable. Following the issuance of that order, transgender prisoners in federal prisons were to be moved to facilities which are meant for members of their biological sex. Three transgender female prisoners who were set to be moved to male federal prisons filed a lawsuit alleging one, their medical needs would

not be met at a prison that does not recognize their gender identity, and two, they would not be safe in a men's facility. On February 4th, a judge issued a temporary restraining order against the federal government, which meant the government could not move the transgender women to the men's facility, and in reasoning this way, the judge cited to the Eighth Amendment, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment. The most recent development, though, came earlier this week when that temporary block was extended to an additional 12 inmates. Notably, this is the second lawsuit related to this issue since the president's executive order.

In January, an inmate was set to be transferred to a male prison after the Bureau of Prisons records changed their sex from female to male. They filed a lawsuit with similar reasoning and that judge also granted a temporary restraining order against the government. That inmate has since been placed on, or I should say has since been placed in,

a special holding unit pending transfer. Okay, let's take our second and final break here. I know the ad times are a little bit messed up this episode. The timing was just a little bit off. We're going to take our second and final break here. When we come back, we'll talk about a foreign aid legal saga, some quick hitters, and rumor has it. Okay, welcome back. Let's now talk about this foreign aid legal saga. Last night, the Supreme Court paused a lower court order requiring the Trump administration to release $2 billion in frozen foreign aid. The effect of the Supreme Court's ruling is that the administration does not have to release the funds that it was previously ordered to by a lower court,

but let's back up a bit and talk about how we got here. So on Trump's first day in office, he issued an executive order which stopped the disbursement of foreign aid to international organizations for 90 days. This included USAID-funded programs and impacted various health and educational programs and organizations worldwide. So various nonprofit organizations and contractors that are involved in the US foreign assistance programs sue the administration, arguing that the administration's decision to suspend foreign aid violates both federal law and the Constitution. Consequently, the plaintiffs asked the court for a court order to enforce the release of the

suspended foreign aid payments and ensure that the contracted programs would continue receiving the money they were promised. So roughly two weeks ago, a judge granted that request. However, despite that order, the plaintiffs say that they are unaware of any payments having gone through to them. And without the payments and reimbursement for work that had already been completed, they would be forced to furlough workers and end critical programs overseas. So a week after the judge issued that original order, he granted another motion from the

plaintiffs, this time to enforce the order. In doing so, he criticized the administration for keeping the funds suspended. He ordered the administration to end the suspension and honor the terms of existing contracts and grants, and gave the administration roughly 36 hours until 11.59 PM Eastern Time on Wednesday to pay the roughly $2 billion that was owed to contractors for work that had been completed prior to February 13th. The day before the Wednesday deadline, the administration appeals the order,

arguing that the Wednesday deadline was impractical because the required payments would take weeks to process due to new procedures aimed at ensuring legitimacy and compliance with policy goals. Wednesday night rolls around and the appeals court had not yet acted on the appeal, so with the deadline approaching in a matter of hours, the administration seeks emergency intervention from the Supreme Court. Then, between the time that the administration went to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, but before the Supreme Court issued their ruling Wednesday night, the appeals court made its decision. It rejected the administration's appeal finding that the lower court's order was not appealable. However, since the administration had already gone to the Supreme Court, it just awaited the Supreme court's order was not appealable. However, since the administration had already gone

to the Supreme Court, it just awaited the Supreme Court's response. And late last night, Chief Justice Roberts issued an order that put the lower court's order on hold, meaning the administration does not have to pay the roughly $2 billion in foreign aid, at least not yet, because the Chief Justice also ordered the plaintiffs, the ones that originally sued

the administration, to submit their response to the administration's appeal by noon tomorrow and implied that the court would make a more permanent decision once it reviews the briefs from both parties. Now the reason that the Chief Justice issued this order alone is because the way the court works is like this. Each justice has jurisdiction over a certain appellate circuit. For instance, when there's an appeal from the eighth circuit

court of appeals, it goes to Justice Kavanaugh. When there's an appeal from the second circuit, it goes to Justice Sotomayor. When there's an appeal from the DC circuit court of appeals, it goes to the Chief Justice. When a justice receives an appeal, they can either act alone or they can refer it to the full court.

Obviously in this situation, because there was very limited time to act, the chief justice acted alone, but that's the way the court works. Also worth noting, court orders, which is what we saw last night, court orders are different than court opinions when it comes to the Supreme Court. So with orders, the court does not have to give us a rationale or tell us why it ruled the way it did or tell us which way certain justices ruled on any given issue. So in this case, because it was an order, not an opinion, we didn't get much information as to why the chief justice ruled the way he did. We just know that he acted alone in putting the lower court's order on hold.

So more will definitely develop in this case and I will update you accordingly. Let's now move on to some quick hitters, starting with this announcement out of the White House regarding Doge. We finally know who the Doge acting administrator is. Her name is Amy Gleason. She previously worked with the United States digital service from 2018 to 2021. And a couple of things worth mentioning here. One, we talked last week about that affidavit filed by the administration which said Musk was not the administrator of Doge and everyone was kind of like okay well then who is it because the president himself has said Musk is running Doge. We also talked about the fact that in creating Doge, the president essentially renamed what was

once the U.S. digital service to the U.S. Doge Service. So a senior advisor of the US Digital Service now serving as the acting administrator of the US Doge Service kind of makes sense. To give you a little bit of background on Gleason, she is a 53 year old. She has a background in healthcare tech and public service. She started out as a nurse early in her career. She eventually co-founded a telemedicine startup

focused on chronic disease management. Keep in mind, the U.S. Digital Service started as an agency that was meant to make government systems more efficient for purposes of Obamacare. So that's where the healthcare side of Gleason's experience ties into the U.S. Digital Service and now the U.S. Doge Service. But speaking of Doge, the second quick hitter is that on Tuesday, 21 Doge employees resigned in protest against the agency's recent directives. But these are people that previously worked for the US Digital Service. They were not new hires specifically for Doge. They included people like engineers, data scientists, and product managers. And in their resignation letter, they expressed concerns over compromising governmental systems and dismantling critical public services.

And some news out of Congress. The House passed its budget resolution earlier this week, very much along party lines in a 217 to 215 vote. You may remember last week I reported that the House Committee had passed the GOP budget resolution and I said that it would now have to pass the full House. That's what happened on Tuesday. But I've also since talked about the fact that the Senate also passed their own budget resolution, which looks a lot different than the resolution from the House. So what will happen now that both chambers have officially passed their own versions

of a resolution, committees from both chambers will get together, try to sort out their differences with the goal of coming up with one resolution that can be adopted by both chambers. And if and when that one resolution is adopted by both chambers, that's what would serve as the binding roadmap for Congress when it comes time to appropriate funds to each department of the government for the upcoming fiscal year. In other news, the president reiterated today that the 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada will go into effect on March 4th and possibly even an additional 10% tariff on China. Taking to True Social this morning, the president wrote, quote, drugs are still

pouring into our country from Mexico and Canada at very high and unacceptable levels. A large percentage of them of these drugs, much of them in the form of fentanyl, are made in and supplied by China. We cannot allow this scourge to continue to harm the USA and therefore, until it stops or is seriously limited, the proposed tariff scheduled to go into effect on March 4th will indeed go into effect as scheduled. China will likewise be charged an additional 10% tariff on that date. The April 2nd reciprocal tariff date will remain in full force and effect." And the FDA canceled a March meeting about flu vaccine strains without explanation or

any indication that it would be rescheduled. The cancellation follows a postponement of a meeting of CDC vaccine advisors, which was scheduled to take place this week. A member of the Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said the March flu vaccine meeting is held every March to pick flu strains for the upcoming flu season, since it's a six-month production cycle

for a vaccine released in September. The FDA, in confirming the meeting's cancellation, said it would make public its recommendations to manufacturers in time for updated vaccines to be available for the 2025-2026 flu season. And the Supreme Court ruled that death row inmate Richard Glossop will get a new trial after finding prosecutors failed to correct false testimony in Glossop's original trial. I've talked about Glossop's case in the past, but he's been on death row since 1998. Back in 1997, he was the manager at a hotel in Oklahoma City when the hotel's handyman,

Justin Snead, murdered the hotel owner. Snead admitted to the murder, but told police that Glossop paid him to do it. And Sneed offered to testify against Glossop at Glossop's trial in exchange for a plea deal. He did just that. On the stand, Sneed falsely testified that he had never been prescribed lithium and he had never seen a psychiatrist. Years later, new evidence uncovered documents that showed prosecutors knew that Sneed had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, treated by a psychiatrist, and prescribed lithium, but failed to correct Snead's false testimony at trial. So the Supreme Court ultimately found that correcting this false testimony would have disrupted the prosecution's case and their portrayal of Snead and potentially would have

changed the jury's verdict, and therefore Glossop is entitled to a new trial. And yesterday, the president announced that the United States is withdrawing from an agreement that allowed Chevron to drill and refine oil in Venezuela. The deal with Venezuela was one that was entered into by former president Biden as an exception to the sanctions put on Venezuela by the United States. Per the terms of the deal, the United States would allow Chevron to drill in Venezuela, contributing to Venezuela's economy, and Venezuela, in exchange, would facilitate a fair election. As we've talked about, that election definitely did not end up being a fair one, and Trump

wrote on Truth Social today, quote, We are hereby reversing the concessions that crooked Joe Biden gave to Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela on the oil transaction agreement and also having to do with electoral conditions within Venezuela which have not been met by the Maduro regime. Additionally, the regime has not been transporting the violent criminals that they sent into our country back to Venezuela at the rapid pace they agreed to, and therefore ordering that the ineffective and unmet Biden concession agreement be terminated as of the March 1st option to renew." And as our last quick hitter, a new Department of Defense memo written yesterday says, among other things, that service members who have a current diagnosis or history of or exhibit symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria will be processed for separation from military

service. The Secretaries of the Military Depart departments within 30 days must establish procedures and implement steps to identify service members who fall into this category, and then within 30 days of identification, those service members shall begin separation actions, unless an individual is granted a waiver. So waivers would be issued on a case-by-case basis if the service member, one, demonstrates 36 consecutive months of stability in the service member's sex without clinically significant distress or impairment, two, demonstrates that he or she has never attempted to transition to any sex other than their sex, and three, is willing and

able to adhere to all applicable standards. So it seems from the language in the memo that a service member can stay in the military even if they identify with another sex so long as they have never attempted to transition and haven't had any periods of instability in how they view their sex in the last three years. Okay, now it's time for Rumor Has It, my weekly segment where I address rumors submitted by all of you. Either confirm them, dispel them, or add context if I can't dispel or confirm. Rumor has it that the state of Wisconsin is replacing the word mother with inseminated person in state laws. This is true.

Let's also add some context. The governor submitted a budget bill to the state legislature for approval earlier this month and in that bill, the governor changed mother to inseminated person in one particular statute. It is a statute that deals with IVF. Currently the law reads, quote, the husband of the mother at the time of conception of the child shall be the natural father of a conceived child. But the amended law, if it's passed by the legislature, will read, quote, the spouse of the inseminated person at the time of conception of the child shall be the natural parent of the child conceived be the natural parent of the child conceived."

This change is one of many changes in the budget bill that substitutes gendered terms with gender-neutral language, but the only instance of changing mother to inseminated person is in that IVF statute. The governor responded to the criticism he has received, saying, I didn't know Republicans were against IVF, but apparently they are because that is what this is about. Moms are moms, dads are dads, and what we want is legal certainty that moms are able to get the care they need. That's it. End of story. End quote. Rumor has it that President Trump was a Russian spy. Let's add some context. This claim originates from two former Russian intelligence officers. The first made his claim in 2021, the other made his claim more recently in the last week or so. So in 2021 in a book titled American Compromat, How the

KGB Cultivated Donald Trump and Related Tales of Sex, Greed, Power, and Treachery, a former KGB major named Yuri Shvets alleged that Russia had compromised Trump. More recently, a former Soviet intelligence officer named Alnur Musaev made a Facebook post on February 20th claiming that in 1987, the KGB had converted quote 40 year old businessman from the United States Donald Trump named Krasnov while Trump had visited the Soviet Union. So this post quickly gained traction and ex-user ended up making a thread of quote various pieces of information that solidified the truth of Trump's KGB involvement that post has since been viewed over 10 million times. So here's what we know

intelligence reports indicate that in the mid 1980s KGB operatives were instructed to target influential western figures like prominent businessmen. Musaev claims that Trump visited Russia in 1987 to learn more about a real estate project that was supposed to be backed by Soviet officials. And during that trip, Trump met with Soviet officials about the real estate project and may have been converted to an asset during these meetings. Musaev further claims that Trump's KGB file is still active and managed by a close ally of Putin. And he attempts to substantiate these claims by saying that in 1987, he was working for the, him being Musaev, was working for the KGB's sixth directorate, and while

there, recruiting businessmen from capitalist countries was his department's top priority. Now, Snopes has reported that Musaev's timeline doesn't match his story because it says that while Musaev says he worked for the KGB's sixth directorate in 1987, multiple Russian language directories show that Musiev officially left the KGB in 1986 and moved to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which is where he worked during Trump's 1987 visit. Adding to that, Snopes reports that espionage is not believed to have been the primary objective of the sixth directorate. Instead, according to the encyclopedia of the CIA, this division focused on

enforcing financial and trade laws as well as guarding against economic espionage. On the possible truth side of things, Trump did reportedly visit Moscow in 1987 to look at possible locations for luxury hotels and Trump's relatively pro-Russian positions compared to past presidents have led some to believe that he is, you know, or was a Russian asset in one way or another. And given the fact that multiple former Russian intelligence officers have now made similar accusations and it's not just one person, some are tending to believe them. Unfortunately, with this rumor, I cannot definitively confirm its truth or falsity, but that is what we know. So 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 on Monday.