UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (2/3/25): Trump's Tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico; DOGE's Access to Treasury Dept. Records and USAID; DoD Issues Statement About Removing 'Special Observances;' and More.

Episode Date: February 3, 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: Adding More to Thursday's 'Rumor Has It' Segment Re: Disbanded FAA Committee and FAA DEI Programs (0:12) Musk's DOGE Agency Seeks Access to USAID and Treasury Dept. Resources (4:08) President Trump Announces Tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada; Here's Where His Authority To Do So Comes From (12:13) (**Since recording, President Trump paused tariffs on Canada after reaching an agreement with Canada's PM**) Dept. of Defense Says It Will No Longer Use Federal Resources for 'Special Observances' Like Black History Month or Women's History Month (24:54) Quick Hitters: Marines Begin Migrant Prep at Guantanamo Bay, Venezuela Releases American Detainees and Agrees to Accept Deportation Flights, Trump Says ISIS Attacker and Other Terrorists Were Struck with Air Strike in Somalia (29:36) Daily Critical Thinking Segment (33:18) 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

This episode is brought to you by Samsung Galaxy. Ever captured a great night video only for it to be ruined by that one noisy talker? With audio erase on the new Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra, you can reduce or remove unwanted noise and relive your favorite moments without the distractions. And that's not all. New Galaxy AI features like NowBrief will give you personalized insights based on your day schedule so that you're prepared no matter what. Pre-order the Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra now at Samsung.com. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome

back to Unbiased. Today is Monday, February 3rd. Let's talk about some news. I want to start off today's episode with sort of an addition to last Thursday's episode. In the rumor has it segment on Thursday, one of the rumors that I addressed was that President Trump eliminated an FAA committee one week before the DC crash and that he blamed the crash on DEI programs. And throughout that discussion and in adding context to those claims, I noted that what Trump did was he put an end to DEI programs within the federal government, and specifically within the FAA, and instructed the FAA to return to non-discriminatory merit-based

hiring. I also confirmed that he, while speaking at a press conference after the crash, cited to the FAA's DEI hiring policies as a potential contributor to the crash, indicating that perhaps the people involved were not the most qualified but were instead hired due to DEI policies. Now, I need to add a couple of things to that discussion. Number one, aside from doing away with DEI programs within the FAA, he also did away with a committee called the Aviation Security Advisory Committee, which advises the TSA administrator on aviation security. And that committee usually meets four times a year. Its next meeting was scheduled for February 26th. Given the fact that the committee

had their most recent meeting and wasn't scheduled to meet again until later this month, aviation experts have said that the revocation of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee likely had no impact on the DC crash. However, I do think it's worth noting because after all the entire rumor was to address whether he got rid of this committee and I only spoke about the DEI revocation that he issued and not the aviation security advisory committee. So I wanted to note that. The other thing I want to note is that one of the DEI programs that Trump did away with two weeks ago was actually created during his first administration. So I mentioned on Thursday that the DEI programs that he did away with via executive order

had been in effect since 2013, but if you look back at FAA archives, the FAA actually announced a more recent pilot program on April 11, 2019, which was created to quote, help prepare people with disabilities for careers in air traffic operations. The press release goes on to say, quote, a key focus for the FAA's Office of Civil Rights is to identify specific opportunities for people with targeted disabilities, empower them, and facilitate their entry

into a more diverse and inclusive workforce. The FAA will enroll up to 20 people in the aviation development program, and they will train for up to one year at 10 air route traffic control centers throughout the US. The candidates in this program will receive the same rigorous consideration in terms of aptitude, medical and security qualifications

as those individuals considered for a standard public opening for air traffic controller jobs." End quote. And in order to qualify for that program, you had to have been a US citizen, younger than 30 years old, passed the air traffic skills assessment aptitude test, have either three years of work experience

or a bachelor's degree, or a combination of post-secondary education and work experience that totaled three years, and then a few other things. But that pilot program, in accordance with Trump's order two weeks ago, has now been dismantled. However, again, I just wanted to note those things because I should have included them

in that initial discussion. I think it paints a more full picture. And if you do want to hear that full discussion, tune into Thursday's episode, specifically the Rumor Hazard segment. I know sometimes when I add clarity to a previous story and maybe you didn't listen to the original story, the context doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. So definitely do that if you have an extra five minutes or so.

But now that takes us into our first official story of this episode, which is what is going on with USAID, social security numbers, and Elon Musk. First, we'll talk about the USAID portion of the story, and then we'll talk about the social security numbers. First and foremost, what is USAID? USAID is the United States Agency for International Development. It was created in 1961 by President Kennedy

during the United States' Cold War struggle with the Soviet Union. Kennedy wanted a more efficient way to counter Soviet influence abroad through foreign assistance and at the time saw the State Department as frustratingly bureaucratic at doing that. So USAID came about as an independent agency in 1961 and today provides international humanitarian relief on behalf of the U.S. government. To illustrate, last year the United States gave the Sub-Saharan Africa region more than $6.5 billion in humanitarian assistance and the U.S. is the largest provider of humanitarian assistance globally, spending roughly $40 billion in the 2023 fiscal year.

Notably though, foreign assistance amounts to less than 1% of the US budget. USAID has long had both supporters and critics since its founding, really. Supporters say the assistance is necessary in some countries to counter Russian and Chinese influence, and that USAID should have its own independent autonomy and authority, whereas critics say the program is wasteful, promotes a liberal agenda, and should be subject to the control of the State Department, which actually currently provides overall policy guidance to USAID.

Now, one of these critics, you know, one of the critics of USAID is Elon Musk, who leads DOGE, which is the newly created Department of Government Efficiency. As written in a White House statement, the objective of DOJ is modernizing federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity. But DOJ's main goal is really to cut wasteful spending and yeah, wasteful spending in the government, detect fraud, all of those things. And Musk believes that one big wasteful spender is USAID. On that note, according to

US officials who spoke anonymously, over the weekend about eight Doge officials entered the USAID building asking for access to the building and its resources. USAID security officials denied their access, saying that they believed they had a legal obligation to deny access because of Doge's lack of security clearance. Now you're about to hear me use the word allegedly a lot, and that's because we don't know if any of this is fact. Everything I'm about to say reportedly came from USAID officials that spoke anonymously. So allegedly, security personnel at USAID were specifically preventing Doge officials from

accessing a sensitive compartmented information facility, also known as an SCIF, which are these highly secure rooms where officials and government contractors take extra precautions to review highly classified information. Allegedly, when USAID or the USAID personnel tried to stop them from accessing these areas, DOJ officials threatened to call federal marshals.

But also allegedly Doge officials were eventually given access to these secure spaces, which includes access to classified information. Kate Miller, a member of the Doge advisory board, said no classified information was accessed without proper security clearance. The night that all of this took place, the USAID Director for

Security and Deputy Director for Security were put on leave and those two individuals add to the roughly 100 senior USAID staff that had already been put on leave within the last week before this whole Doge situation unfolded. And last night an email was reportedly sent to USAID employees that said, agency personnel normally assigned to work at USAID headquarters will work remotely tomorrow, with the exception of personnel with essential on-site and building maintenance functions individually contacted by senior leadership. We also know that the USAID website has been down since Saturday, and as of today,

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that he is currently serving as the acting director of USAID. Remember how he said critics of USAID believe it should be subject, believe USAID should be subject to more State Department control? Well, Rubio, who leads the State Department, is now acting director of USAID until he's replaced by someone who will take over the position permanently. Now, I know one of the big questions is, does Doge have access to classified material? Are they allowed to access classified material? And the answer seems to be no. Not only is Doge a non-governmental advisory board, but the executive order that established Doge explicitly says that Doge has access to all unclassified records and systems.

So again, we don't really know exactly who was able to access this supposed classified information and whether those people did in fact have the requisite security clearance. But another parallel storyline here is Musk's access to social security numbers. Many of you wrote in asking me to clear up what's going on and similar to the USAID portion of this story, we don't know much. We're just going off of what's being reported. So that's what I can tell you along those same lines that we discuss of Doge trying to identify wasteful spending within the government. Doge apparently requested access to the Treasury Department's government payment systems to figure out where it can cut costs.

The Treasury Secretary, Scott Besant, granted quote unquote read-only access to Doge, which gives Doge employees the ability to read information on the payment system, which includes social security checks and tax refunds, but doesn't grant the authority to make any changes. So Doge can't modify anything, they can just apparently look at it.

According to the New York Times, those employees that were granted access have already undergone government background checks and have acquired the appropriate security clearances for that level of the treasury. Today, when the president was signing executive orders, he was asked about Musk's access to these records, and this was his response.

President, why is it important for Elon Musk to have access to the payment systems at Treasury? Well, he's got access only to letting people go that he thinks are no good, if we agree with him. And it's only if we agree with him. He's a very talented guy from the standpoint of management and costs. And we put him in charge of seeing what he can do

with certain groups and certain numbers. The numbers, some of the numbers are horrible, what he's found. Elon can't do and won't do anything without our approval. And we'll give him the approval where appropriate. We're not appropriate. We won't. But he reports in and he... It's something that he feels very strongly about,

and I'm impressed because he's running, obviously, a big company. It has nothing to do with this. There's a conflict that we won't let him get near it. But he does have a good natural instinct. He's got a team of very talented people. We're trying to shrink government and he can probably shrink it as well as anybody else, if not better. Where we think there's a conflict or there's a problem, we won't let him go near it." So both of these situations, the U.S. aid access and the Treasury Department

access, could tee up a legal challenge which would likely pose the question of whether a non-governmental advisory board like DOGE can access government records such as these. And the USAID access is a little different considering the USAID is also an independent entity. But obviously the Treasury Department poses slightly different questions since the Treasury Department is a federal department that has, you know, personally identifiable information. So that's what we know as of now. Sorry, I couldn't give you more definitive answers, but if we do find out more, I will

let you know. Let's take our first break of the day here to hear from the sponsors that help keep the show alive and I will be right back. Okay, moving right along, let's talk about these tariffs. Over the weekend, President Trump announced that he would be imposing tariffs on all imports from Canada, Mexico, and China with a few exceptions. More specifically, Canada and Mexico would see a 25% tariff on all imports except Canadian energy resources, which will instead have a 10% tariff, and that's likely to minimize increases on the price of gas and utilities but China would similarly see a 10% tariff but on all imports.

Since that announcement, President Trump did reach an agreement with the president of Mexico. We'll touch on that more in a minute but those tariffs will now be paused for a month. So as of now, the tariffs against Canada and China are scheduled to take effect tonight at 1201 Eastern Time, but a lot is constantly changing. So just know that whatever information I'm about to give you is what we have as of 2 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday. Let's first touch on the reason for this decision to impose tariffs and then we'll talk about the responses from the three countries as well as some legal concerns, the arguments on both sides, and what we can expect moving forward. According to the president, the rationale behind the decision is one, to curb illegal immigration, two, to stop the flow of drugs across the border,

particularly fentanyl, and three, to boost American manufacturing and end unfair trade practices. Now, you might be wondering how tariffs impact illegal immigration and the flow of drugs across the border. So let me add a little context. Essentially, when tariffs are placed on another country, the tariff is actually paid by the importer, in this case, a US entity, and that causes US importers to stop purchasing goods

made in those countries because they don't want to pay tariffs if they don't have to, so they're going to look elsewhere. This ultimately hurts the other countries' economies. In turn, those countries are going to want to assist the United States in whatever it is the United States is looking for to get those tariffs lifted, in this case curbing illegal immigration

and reducing the flow of drugs across the border. Whether that means Canada and Mexico start increasing personnel on their side of the border, or China implements better inspection procedures on exports to make sure they're not sending over illegal drugs, whatever it might be. In theory, the tariffs will cause these countries to implement certain actions that make the United States happy and therefore the United States lifts the tariffs and the business goes back to those countries. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that these countries won't also impose what are called retaliatory tariffs, which as of now it looks like Canada will. Initially, Canada's Prime Minister and Mexico's president both said they would

be imposing retaliatory tariffs against the United States and matching the 25% tariffs imposed on them. But since then, Mexico's president and Trump have reached an agreement putting a pause on the tariffs against Mexico for a month. Per that agreement, Mexico's president agreed to send 10,000 personnel from Mexico's National Guard to the U.S.-Mexico border to help with illegal immigration and drug trafficking. And the United States agreed to ramp up efforts to prevent the trafficking of weapons into Mexico. However, like I said, there has not yet been an agreement reached with Canada, and Canada's Prime

Minister did announce retaliatory tariffs of 25% on more than $100 billion of US goods. Retaliatory tariffs are exactly what they sound like, right? If the United States imposes 25% tariffs on Canadian goods, Canada is going to impose 25% tariffs on US goods. But keep in mind, Canada's Prime Minister Anne Trump could reach an agreement that avoids that. That's just something we'll have to see with time. As for China, China's foreign ministry said they would also be taking countermeasures but didn't announce specific measures. The foreign ministry did say that it would challenge the tariffs at the World Trade Organization. However, that wouldn't really have much of an effect

because the appellate body at the WTO hasn't functioned since 2019. And also, the WTO provides exceptions for national security, so the imposition of tariffs might even be upheld by the WTO provides exceptions for national security, so the imposition of tariffs might even be upheld by the WTO if it was challenged. With that said, we know that President Trump has said he would rather not impose tariffs on China, and he said he'd like to reach a deal with China's president, so that might happen. An expert in international economic law in Hong Kong noted that it is plausible that Trump and Xi see

an opportunity for a deal here, not necessarily because their broader objectives align, but because both operate in a world where political and economic leverage are constantly recalibrated, where tariffs are as much about signaling power as they are about shifting trade balances, and where the broader geopolitical climate often dictates short-term economic moves far more than any conventional trade logic would suggest. So again, just reinforcing the idea that perhaps a deal is in the works between the United States and China to avoid a potential tariff war. Notably, the Trump administration, or actually I should just say President Trump, is having

calls with the leaders of these countries today to try to work something out before that midnight deadline. So we will have to see what happens there. Now, I do wanna talk about the authority behind this particular imposition of tariffs. So Trump's order cited to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, or the IEEPA, which gives the president a broad authority

over financial transactions in the situation where it's needed to address an unusual or extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States. In this case, we know that the president has deemed illegal immigration and the flow of illegal drugs across the border as national emergencies. So under the law, a president can take various economic actions to address threats from outside the United States, which ultimately impact national security, foreign policy, or the economy. In the past, presidents have used the IEEPA to impose sanctions

In the past, presidents have used the IEEPA to impose sanctions against other countries, like trade bans, travel bans, or the freezing of funds and financial transactions. Presidents have also used this law to implement control exports, which are laws that limit the sale of certain goods, technologies, or services to other countries. And again, the reason for taking these actions under the IEEPA is to penalize another country in one way or another, to entice them to act in a certain way so as to correct an issue within US national security, foreign policy, or the economy.

Notably, while presidents have used other laws to impose tariffs, no president has used the IEEPA to impose tariffs. So this is the first, like Trump using the IE EPA to impose tariffs is the first time it's happened. Therefore, we may see this challenged in court. But in saying that, let's talk a little bit more about the history of the IE EPA and why it might face challenges. Throughout the 20th century, Congress gave increasing amounts of emergency power to the president by statute. The Trading with the Enemy Act, or TWEA, was the first,

which Congress passed back in 1917, and its purpose was to regulate international transactions with enemy powers following World War I. Congress later expanded the act in the 30s to allow the president to declare a national emergency in times of peace and assume sweeping powers over both domestic and international transactions. Between 1945 and the early 1970s, TWEA was really one of the only ways to impose sanctions, and during the Cold War, presidents used TWEA to block international financial transactions, seize U.S.-based assets held by foreign nationals, restrict exports, modify regulations to deter the hoarding of gold, limit foreign direct investment in U.S. companies, and impose tariffs

on all imports into the United States. In fact, President Nixon invoked the TWEA to impose across the board 10% tariffs after the United States left the gold standard in the 70s. But following congressional committee investigations around that time in the 70s, which found that the United States had been in a state of emergency basically for more than 40 years, Congress passed two new laws, the National Emergencies Act, NEA in 1976, and the IEEPA in 1977. And these laws actually placed limits

on presidential emergency powers granted in the TWEA. The new laws included reporting requirements to increase transparency and track costs. And the NEA specifically required the president to annually assess a national emergency and could extend the emergency if necessary, but impose that annual assessment requirement. Also, the NEA gave Congress the ability

to terminate a national emergency by adopting what's called a joint resolution. So that's how this presidential power has developed over the years. As of January 15th of 2024, presidents had declared 69 national emergencies invoking IEEPA, 39 of which are actually still ongoing. And history tells us that national emergencies invoking IEEPA often last nearly a decade, although some have lasted much longer than that.

The first state of emergency declared under the NEA and IE EPA, which was declared in response to the taking of US embassy staff as hostages by Iran in 1979 is currently in its fifth decade. So if the imposition of tariffs is challenged, under the IE EPA, the challenge will most likely come in the form of are the powers granted by the IE EPA, the challenge will most likely come in the form of, are the powers granted by the IE EPA too broad? But that's a whole other conversation, the legalities of it. I just wanted to give you a

little bit of history and sort of talk through the legalities a little bit, but let's turn back to the topic of tariffs because many are curious about the arguments on both sides. And I do highly encourage you to look into the debate yourself because there is a lot to know. And as I've said in the past, we could dedicate an entire episode just to tariffs. That's how complex the debate is. But I'll try to sum it up the best I can. The thing is, is tariffs do raise the cost of goods here in the United States. That's because, as I said earlier, importers pay the tariffs to the US Treasury. And oftentimes, the importers have to raise their prices for these goods to compensate for the tax they now have to pay the government to import the good. The exception here is if the importer finds

another country to import from for the same cost or better. In a new analysis from the Tax Policy Center, households incomes after taxes would likely fall by $930, which is equivalent to just under 1% in 2026, if the 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico were to stand. But then the other thing we have to take into account too, when assessing specifically data like that is tax cuts. For instance, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which Trump enacted in 2017, is set to expire this year.

Trump has said he wants to see more tax cuts, so it's possible that the additional tax cuts, which wouldn't take effect until the next tax year, makes up for any hit to household incomes from tariffs, but also maybe not. It is one of those things. Only time will tell. However, important to assess when you're looking at how these tariffs could affect household income. But the question is, if tariffs increase the cost of goods,

why would we impose them? Well, those in favor of tariffs argue that if tariffs do as much as they're intended to do, which is to get countries to change their behavior for the benefit of the United States, then the tariffs are only temporary and will have a better outcome in the future. In other words, short-term pain for long-term gain, right? The other argument is that it boosts US manufacturing because now these importers that were importing from other countries may turn to US manufacturing instead and put more money back into the US economy. But like I've said in the past, there are strong arguments on both sides of the tariff debate. So I do highly encourage you to take 30 minutes or so, look into the data and the research

on both sides and see where you stand on them, see which side you lean towards more. As a final note, just keep in mind that this whole conversation is constantly changing, so it is possible by the time this episode is out, or by the time you're listening to this episode, President Trump may have reached a deal with Canada or China, and all of the sudden, tariffs are off the table. We don't know. Time will tell, but at this point in the day, this is where we're at. We're also at the point in this episode where it's time for our second and final break, so let's do it, and I will be right back.

Welcome back. Let's move on to a story about some federal agencies banning special observances like Black History Month, Pride Month, and others. So the DOD, Department of Defense, issued a statement which reads in part, quote, "'Going forward, DOD components and military departments "'will not use official resources, including man hours, to host celebrations or events related to cultural awareness months, including National African

American Black History Month, Women's History Month, Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, Pride Month, National Hispanic Heritage Month, National Disability Employment Awareness Month, and National American Indian Heritage Month. Service members and civilians remain permitted to attend these events in an unofficial capacity outside of duty hours. Installations, units, and offices are encouraged to celebrate the valor and success of military heroes of all races, genders, and backgrounds as we restore our warrior culture and ethos. We are proud of our warriors and their history, but we will focus on the character

of their service instead of their immutable characteristics." Then a memo circulating on social media says the Defense Intelligence Agency, which is an agency within the Department of Defense, will also be pausing these efforts in line with executive orders banning DEI. That memo reads in part, quote, Defense Intelligence Agency will pause all activities and events related to agency special emphasis programs effective immediately and until further notice. Additionally, special observances hosted throughout the year by the command-elect and special observances are also paused.

The memo goes on to list which observances this applies to, but notes that the pause will not impact federal holidays. So some of those observances that are paused are Black History Month, Women's History Month, Holocaust Day and Days of Remembrance, Pride Month, National Disability Employment Awareness Month, and a few others. Notably, the memo does not apply to federal holidays like MLK Day or Juneteenth. So the next question is why? Why is the Department of Defense not using official resources to celebrate these non-federal holidays? Well, it all goes back to two of Trump's executive orders, one titled Ending

Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, and another order titled Initial Recisions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions. And in short, what those executive orders do is pause government spending on all DEI-related matters and give the government time to sort out what it will spend its money on when it comes to DEI spending, if anything. Obviously, if these agencies are using funds to host celebrations or observances for some of these occasions, that may constitute spending on DEI-related matters and therefore it must be paused in accordance with the executive orders. Whether that pause becomes permanent, that we don't know. Now, I have received quite a few requests to address Black History Month specifically, and what I can tell you is this. So on Friday,

February 1st, President Trump signed a proclamation acknowledging Black History Month just like every president has done since 1996 and the order reads, Now therefore I, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim February 2025 as National Black History Month. I call upon public officials, educators, librarians, and all of the people of the United States to observe this month with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities." End quote. Where it's a little more ambiguous is when it, you know, when we're talking about the use of government spending to facilitate observance observances for Black History Month.

If we look at the text of the executive order titled ending radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing that order specifically says quote, Americans deserve a government committed to serving every person with equal dignity and respect and to expending precious taxpayer resources only on making America great." End quote. So of course what counts as making America great is up for interpretation by the Trump administration, but this order is one of the executive orders that the Defense Intelligence Agency cited to as reasoning for pausing these non-federal observances, like Black History Month. So we'll have to see how this plays out with time. Unfortunately, with some things, as we've heard in this episode, we just don't have all of the answers and this is one of those things.

But that's what you need to know about the memos that have been circulating within the Department of Defense. The department has decided not to spend any government funds on observances such as these. Moving on to quick hitters, just a few today. In an update to the Guantanamo Bay migrant facility, roughly 150 Marines arrived at the facility on Sunday to begin preparing for the migrant arrivals. As we talked about last week, Trump's plan for the facility is to eventually house 30,000 migrants, but it's unclear if that's possible considering the most migrants that have been held at Guantanamo at one time

was 12,000 back in the 90s. In speaking to NBC DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said the migrants will be afforded due process, which is a constitutional right guaranteed and granted to everyone, not just U.S. citizens. And Noem reiterated that the administration's goal is to house the quote-unquote worst of the worst migrants. When Noem was asked whether women and children could be held at the facility, she responded, quote, If you look at what we're doing today, it's targeting the worst of the worst. We've been very clear on that. The priority of this president is to go after criminal aliens that are making our streets more dangerous."

When asked again whether she could rule out housing women and children, she responded, We're going to use the facilities that we have, and I think you're well aware we have other detention facilities, other places in the country. So we will utilize what we have according to what's appropriate for the individuals." End quote. And if you want to know more about the Guantanamo Bay facility and what the plans are for that facility, I did speak about it within the first 15 to 20 minutes of last Thursday's episode, so definitely check that out if you haven't already and if you're looking for that added information and context. Speaking of immigration though, Venezuela has agreed to accept deportation flights from the United States. This announcement actually came through a post to Truth Social by President Trump on Saturday after Venezuela returned six American

detainees. So the post was about the detainees that were returned to America but then at the end he quickly addressed the deportation flights. So he wrote in part quote, it is so good to have the hostage, the Venezuela hostages back home. And very important to note that Venezuela has agreed to receive back into their country, all Venezuela illegal aliens who were encamped in the US, including gang members. Venezuela has further agreed to supply the transportation back, end quote. As for the Americans released by Venezuela, US officials have not provided details. However, Venezuelan officials have

accused them of terrorism, something that the US denies. And speaking of the President's Truth Social posts, we learned that the US Africa command carried out an airstrike with the goal of killing a senior ISIS attack planner. Trump wrote, quote, this morning I ordered precision military airstrikes on the senior ISIS attack planner and other terrorists he recruited and led in Somalia. These killers, we found hiding in caves, threatened the United States and our allies. The strikes destroyed the caves they live in and killed many terrorists without in any way harming civilians.

Our military has targeted this ISIS attack planner for years, but Biden and his cronies wouldn't act quickly enough to get the job done. I did. The message to ISIS and all others who would attack Americans is that we will find you and we will kill you." End quote. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said Saturday that the strikes were carried out by US Africa command and directed by President Trump in coordination with Somalia's government. But notably at this time, and this is important,

we haven't received official confirmation that the ISIS attack planner that's mentioned in the post was actually killed, but rather that he was targeted, the caves in which these terrorists lived in were destroyed and other terrorists were killed. So we'll stay tuned for that confirmation. But now it's time for some critical thinking. We spoke a little bit about DEI in this episode. And as we know, DEI has been a hot topic since the election with President Trump signing executive orders

to do away with DEI offices within the federal government. And then again, as we know, both Vice President Vance and President Trump making remarks about the DC plane crash, potentially having something to do with DEI hiring programs. So it's really kind of been the focus in the news lately. So let's explore that topic a bit and actually try to dive into our own biases

and also maybe take into account some of the counter arguments. So a few facts about DEI first. DEI stands for diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. And the idea behind it actually goes back to the 60s with the Civil Rights Movement and one of President Kennedy's executive orders, which required government contractors

to take affirmative action. So affirmative action being the highlighted word there, to ensure that applicants are hired and employees are treated without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. From there, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The following year, President Johnson signed Executive Order 11246, which essentially affirmed Kennedy's earlier order. And a couple of years after that, Congress passed the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. And then of course you have the education amendments of 1972, which was meant to protect women specifically from discrimination in schools.

And then in the 80s, President Reagan was actually the first president that voiced wanting to do away with these equality and affirmative action laws because he felt that a diverse workforce should be seen as a competitive advantage rather than a legal constraint. And then obviously in more recent years, diversity, equity, and inclusion has been expanded to include gender identity and sexual orientation. So the idea behind DEI actually goes back decades, and even the controversy behind it goes back decades. But the idea itself, protecting certain classes of people from

discrimination and giving them equal employment opportunities, didn't really get the name DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion, until more recently in the 2000s. In fact, during the pandemic is when we really saw these DEI programs as we know them today in the corporate world sort of start to take shape. But at its core, DEI emphasizes organizational frameworks which seek to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly groups who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination based on identity or disability. With that, some people feel that DEI promotes equal opportunities,

reduces discrimination and bias, and fosters innovation. Others feel that it brings unnecessary costs, it may value diversity over qualifications, and along similar lines, reduce competitive advantage, and that focusing on our differences can actually divide us more than it connects us. So let's reflect a bit. I have a few questions for you.

Number one, of course, what's your initial opinion on DEI? Number two, if we take a step back, how has your opinion developed over time? Meaning, what life experiences or values have led you to feel the way that you do about DEI? And over time, have led you to feel the way that you do about DEI? And over time, have you come to side with one side more than the other or have your beliefs changed over time?

And then three, and this is the hard part, I want you to rebut whichever argument you feel is the strongest argument. So if you are adamant that DEI should stay because it promotes equal opportunities, I want you to rebut that argument. And then on the other side, if you feel strongly that DEI puts diversity over qualifications and therefore should go away, I want you to counter that argument. This is a technique in debate called steel manning, and it's a technique that really helps us craft our own arguments. Steelmanning

is basically when we create a version of our opponent's argument that's even stronger than our own, because the best way to strengthen our own argument is by taking on our opponent's strongest arguments. And this is a technique you'll see me challenge you with a lot in critical thinking segments. So what's a better time to start practicing than right now? That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. Have a fantastic next few days and I will talk to you on Thursday.

["Dreams of a New World"] It's the season for new styles and you love to shop for jackets and boots. So when you do, always make sure you get cash back from Rakuten. And it's not just clothing and shoes. You can get cash back from over 750 stores on electronics, holiday travel, home decor, and more. It's super easy, and before you buy anything, always go to Rakuten first.

Join free at rakuten.ca. Start shopping and get your cash back sent to you by check or PayPal. Get the Rakuten app or join at rakuten.ca. R-A-K-U-T-E-N dot C-A.