UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (3/13/25): Trump Threatens 200% Tariffs, Khalil's Arrest and Detention, USAID Official Says 'Burn & Destroy' Documents, CDC Director Nomination Withdrawn, and More.

Episode Date: March 13, 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: Tariff War Update; Trump Threatens 200% Tariffs (1:22) Meta Whistleblower Files SEC Complaint and Releases Tell-All Memoir (7:01) HHS Secretary Kennedy Wants to Get Rid of Generally Recognized as Safe "Loophole" (11:53) DOJ Dismisses Federal Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Shelter for Unaccompanied Migrant Children; HHS Announces All Children Removed and All Shelters Closed (15:21) Washington State Sues Washington County Accusing Sheriffs Office of Assisting ICE Agents (20:45) USAID Sued After Acting Secretary Orders Employees to "Burn" and "Destroy" Documents (23:17) Mahmoud Khalil to Remain in Louisiana Facility At Least Until Friday (26:18) National Transportation Safety Board Issues "Urgent Recommendations" Following DC Crash (30:22) Trump Revokes Security Clearances for Law Firms (31:59) Quick Hitters: Inflation Cools, CDC Director Nomination Withdrawn, Trump Admin Takes Birthright Citizenship to Supreme Court, Astronauts Not Coming Home, Agencies Must Rehire Probationary Employees, Southwest Won't Allow Free Bags, All Migrants at Guantanamo Flown Back to US, EPA's Deregulatory Actions, Government Shutdown Looms (34:29) Critical Thinking Segment (39:20) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE WEEKLY NEWSLETTER. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

After you pulled a door that said push, and before you waved back to someone who wasn't waving at you, there was a moment when everything went just right. The new Cinnamon Swirl from McCafe. A deliciously tasty swirly moment of bliss. Add a $1 plus tax small premium rose coffee to your Cinnamon Swirl today. And take a moment. At participating McDonald's restaurants

in Canada. Product availability varies by restaurant. Prices exclude delivery. Welcome back to unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to unbiased politics. Today is Thursday, March 13th. Let's talk about some news before we do though. I do just want to let you know that my new free weekly newsletter is launching tomorrow morning, which means that those of you that are listening to this episode within a few hours of its release will still have time to subscribe to the newsletter and receive the very first edition in your inbox tomorrow morning. Unfortunately, if you catch this episode after 7am Eastern time on Friday,

you will have missed the opportunity to receive the first edition, but you can of course still sign up and receive the next Friday newsletter. This newsletter is the latest expansion of my unbiased platform. I am super excited about it because I get to dive into other news outside of just politics. So I will of course have a politics section. Obviously I couldn't not, but I'll also have a trending section, a business section, a pop culture section and a health section. So a ton of information for you in those newsletters. That's the name of my game.

I love providing you with information and this is just a new, you know, a new format. So I'm just really excited. I'll leave a link for you in this episode description, and all you have to do is click that link, enter your email, and you are in. So for today's episode, let's start with a little tariff update. I've said it before, I'll say it again,

this tariff situation is constantly changing. So let's just talk about what we know as of right now. And by right now, I mean the morning of March 13th. Specifically, I want to talk about the current fight with the European Union, the EU, and how it started. So President Trump placed a 25% tariff on all steel and aluminum imports, which took effect yesterday morning. These tariffs largely aim to impact Canada, which increased its steel and aluminum exports to the United States by 35% since 2018. However, earlier in the week on Tuesday, Trump had threatened to increase those tariffs from 25% to 50%. He ultimately

decided not to do that after Ontario agreed not to raise tariffs on its electricity exports because its electricity actually supplies or it supplies electricity to 1.5 million American homes and businesses across Minnesota, Michigan and New York. So the 25% tariff on all steel and aluminum imports took effect yesterday. That tariff is expected to increase steel prices in the United States because Canada is the largest steel supplier.

Then the EU gets involved, saying that it would put a tariff on $28 billion worth of US goods starting April 1st. And a lot of people are wondering what the EU's interest is here since none of the tariffs apply directly to European countries. So let's talk about it. The thing is, the steel and aluminum tariffs largely impact Canada, but the tariffs also impact 8 billion euros of EU steel and aluminum exports. On top of that, Trump's economic approach, specifically his tariffs approach, has caused other nations to become concerned with market volatility.

So because of that, they're attempting to retaliate to prevent further harm to their businesses and consumers. According to a statement from the European Commission, the retaliation will consist of two parts. On April 1, it will suspend existing 2018 and 2020 countermeasures against the United States, which is expected to target a range of US products. The second part will happen by April 13, at which time, following consultation with EU member states and stakeholders, the EU will issue new tariffs on the US. A list was published by the European Commission containing possible goods affected, including American beef, poultry, bourbon, motorcycles, peanut butter, and jeans. Notably the EU said it will specifically impose a 50% tariff on Kentucky bourbon, boats, and

Harley Davidson motorcycles, and that'll come into play in a minute. The EU's retaliatory tariffs are expected to cost companies billions of dollars, which will either force companies to lose profit or pass costs onto the consumer by raising the price of goods, or if possible turn to US goods instead. European Commission presidents said that the Commission deeply regrets this measure but that it's necessary and that the EU remains open to negotiations. Today, in the most recent update, President Trump threatened to impose a 200% tariff on European alcohol in response to Europe's retaliation. You've heard on True Social quote, the European Union, one of the

most hostile and abusive taxing and tariffing authorities in the world, which was formed for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the United States, has just put a nasty 50% tariff on whiskey. If this tariff is not removed immediately, the US will shortly place a 200% tariff on all wines, champagnes, and alcoholic products coming out of France and other EU-represented countries. This will be great for the wine and champagne businesses in the United States." Now France is the top wine exporter to the United States. Italy is a close second.

Together they sent $4.8 billion worth of wine to the US last year. So France's trade minister said today in response to Trump's announcement, quote, Trump is escalating the trade war he chose to unleash. France remains determined to respond with the European Commission and our partners. We will not give into threats and we will always protect our sectors. So that's the latest, but like I said, this story is constantly developing. One last note that I want to leave you with is this. Before Trump took office two months ago, there were already targeted tariffs in place

between the US and Canada, which were allowed per the USMCA trade agreement, which was negotiated by Trump, Canada, and Mexico during Trump's first term. Those targeted tariffs included the following. The US had a 25% tariff on Canadian steel, a 10% tariff on Canadian steel, a 10% tariff on Canadian aluminum, varying rates on Canadian lumber, and certain imports of Canadian dairy products were restricted,

not just tariff, but restricted. Canada had a 200 to 300% tariff on US milk, cheese, and butter which were triggered when US imports hit a certain number. The US has never even come close to that number because Canada has supposedly put up various protectionist measures that violate trade obligations. Similar tariffs on US chicken, turkey and eggs when US imports again hit a certain number and lower tariffs on grain products. So these tariffs were already in place before Trump took

office in January. Just wanted to throw that out there. Now on to some meta news. Last week, a former meta employee named Sarah Wynn Williams filed a whistleblower complaint with the SEC. This week, she released a tell-all memoir about her time at the company. And just yesterday, an arbitrator ruled that her new memoir likely violates her employment contract and prohibited any promotion and further distribution. So let's start with the whistleblower complaint. We'll then talk about the memoir and we'll finish with the arbitration ruling.

At the outset, I wanna note that the whistleblower complaint has not been made public. So I'm reporting on what we know from the Washington Post, which was granted access to that complaint. So according to the complaint, and according to the Washington Post, Mehta allegedly censored content and shut down political discourse with the intention of appealing to the Chinese Communist Party and bringing Facebook to Chinese users. Wynne Williams was a global policy director during her time at Metta, and she alleges

that in 2014 Mark Zuckerberg assembled a China team with the intention of developing a version of Facebook that could legally be offered in China. In July of that year, Metta employees allegedly prepared a draft for Zuckerberg to send to China's then deputy head of the propaganda department. That draft letter said in part that Metta had already worked with the Chinese consulate in San Francisco to quote, take down terrorist sites that are potentially dangerous for China, end quote, and offered to quote, work more closely with all your embassies or consulates around the world, end quote. In August 2014, so one month later, Meta leaders allegedly considered altering the company's

privacy protections for the Chinese version of Facebook to make it easier for the Chinese Communist Party to obtain the personal information of its citizens. In 2015, Meta allegedly developed a censorship system specifically for China to review, which included the ability to automatically detect restricted terms and popular content on Facebook. As part of this censorship program, Metta would hire 300 content moderators and have a chief editor who could shut down

the entire system and decide which content to remove. A few years later, in 2017, Metta launched social media apps created by one of their employees under the name of a China-based company and at one point in that same year restricted an account of a high-profile Chinese dissident living in the U.S. due to pressure from a high-ranking Chinese official. So that's the general gist of the complaint, the alleged actions Meta took to be able to enter the Chinese market. Now onto the memoir, which is titled Careless People, a Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed,

and Lost Idealism. In that memoir, Wynne Williams writes that she faced retaliation from the company after she reported sexual harassment by her boss, Joel Kaplan, who at the time was the vice president for global public policy. She also wrote that Metta's former COO Cheryl Sandberg crossed professional lines with her and another employee in a way that made her uncomfortable. Alleged instances include Sandberg having an intimate connection with Sandberg's 26-year-old assistant, which involved taking turns sleeping in each other's laps, occasionally stroking each

other's hair, and Sandberg asking the assistant to buy $13,000 worth of lingerie for the two of them. In a statement on Sunday, Metta said the book includes, quote, false accusations about our executives, and confirmed that Wynne Williams accused Kaplan of sexual harassment, but said the company cleared him after an investigation in 2017. A spokesperson for Meta said, quote, Eight years ago, Sarah Wynn Williams was fired for poor performance and toxic behavior, and an investigation at the time determined she made misleading and

unfounded allegations of harassment. Since then, she has been paid by anti- Facebook activists, and this is simply a continuation of that work. Whistleblower status protects communications to the government, not disgruntled activists trying to sell books." End quote. And then another source who worked at Facebook at the same time as Wynne Williams and Sandberg who was supposedly present for some of the stories that were recounted in the memoir says that Wynne Williams depiction of the events is so distorted that it's quote-unquote laughable. So after the release of the memoir this

week Metta went ahead with arbitration arguing that the book is prohibited distorted that it's quote unquote laughable. So after the release of the memoir this week, Metta went ahead with arbitration, arguing that the book is prohibited under a non-disparagement contract she had signed as an employee. So a non-disparagement agreement is when, typically an employee, but can be anyone in the right contractual setting,

signs off that they won't say anything bad about the company or person that they're working for. And during a hearing yesterday, the arbitrator found that Metta had provided enough grounds that Wynn Williams had potentially violated her contract and therefore temporarily prohibited her from promoting or further distributing copies. And that is where things stand as of now.

So let's move on to the government. HHS Secretary Kennedy has directed the FDA to explore eliminating the self-affirmed generally recognized as safe or gross pathway, which currently allows companies to introduce new food ingredients without notifying the FDA or the public. In a new press release, Kennedy said the move aims

to enhance transparency and oversight of food ingredients, ensuring safety for consumers. Basically, under this generally recognized as safe rule, companies can introduce new food ingredients and chemicals into their food without formal FDA review so long as their own experts or research concludes that the substance meets the GROSS standard. GROSS status requires either research demonstrating safety or a documented history of safe use before 1958. According to unbiased science, achieving GROSS status requires the same level of safety evidence as formal FDA approval. Notably, if new evidence comes out that raises concerns about an ingredient that is generally recognized as safe, GROSS status can be revoked through the no longer GROSS

designation. So let's talk about the arguments for and against GROSS and then we'll touch more on what exactly Kennedy wants to do. We'll start with the arguments against it, those that want to do away with GROSS and leave approval up to the FDA. For one, according to the Environmental Working Group, nearly 99% of new chemicals used in food or packaging since 2000 were approved by the industry itself, not the FDA. Two, gross additives, which were later found to be harmful, like brominated vegetable oil, remained in the food supply for decades before being banned by the FDA, and three, consumers have no way of knowing what quote-unquote unreviewed additives are in their

food. Unreviewed meaning unreviewed by the FDA. Now for the arguments for gross. So in favor of gross. Number one, the gross system was originally created to allow common well-studied ingredients like, you know, simple ingredients like salt and vinegar to be used without unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles. So in some cases, it can actually be more efficient for safe ingredients. Two, the self-affirmation process allows companies to quickly introduce new ingredients and therefore quickly respond to consumer demand for new flavors, healthier alternatives, and functional foods. And three, the FDA lacks the budget and staff to review every ingredient,

so eliminating gross would actually require massive funding increases. And then finally, four, immediate revocation of gross approvals could lead to shortages in certain ingredients that have been used for years and lack any clear evidence of harm. So in light of those arguments, let's get back to what the HHS is trying to do.

Kennedy has directed the FDA to explore potential rulemaking to revise its gross regulations, which would involve eliminating this self-affirmation process and therefore require companies to publicly notify the FDA and submit safety data for new ingredients that they're wanting to introduce. Now, the FDA can implement certain changes through the rulemaking process alone,

but if it wanted to establish a mandatory pre-market review for all gross ingredients, something like that might require congressional action. Nonetheless, the HHS has said it's committed to working with lawmakers to completely close the gross quote unquote loophole. Let's take our first break here.

We still have a lot more to get to. BedMGM, authorized gaming partner of the NBA, has your back all season long. From tip off to the final buzzer, you're always taken care of with a sportsbook born in Vegas. That's a feeling you can only get with BedMGM. And no matter your team, your favorite player, or your style, there's something every NBA fan will love about BedMGM. Download the app today and discover why BedMGM

is your basketball home for the season. Raise your game to the next level this year with BedMGM, a sports book worth a slam dunk, and authorized gaming partner of the NBA. BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly.

If you have any questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connix Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Hey, it's DJ First Dibs. I noticed you've been listening to a lot of summer vibes lately. I get it.

You're dreaming about vacations. Ooh, baby, that's my jam. With Sunwing's First Dibs on summer savings, let us curate something stronger than what you've been listening to. Because while your playlist screams, I need a vacation, my algorithm suggests book before March 30th. Remember, Sunwing. Save more. Do more. Book with your local travel advisor or at sunwing.ca. Welcome back. Staying on the topic of the HHS, but this time the HHS and DOJ. So the HHS and DOJ have dropped

a government sexual harassment lawsuit against Southwest Key Shelters after announcing the removal of the children from these shelters. And before we dive into the story, I do wanna give you a little context as to what Southwest Key is and what it does or what it did. Southwest Key is a Texas-based nonprofit

that has contracts or had contracts with the federal government to care for unaccompanied migrant children. It operated 27 shelters in Texas, Arizona, and California, and it was the largest provider of shelter to unaccompanied migrant children. Between 2015 and 2023, Southwest Key was awarded $3 billion from the HHS. And we've talked about this before, but when immigration authorities encounter unaccompanied migrant children, the children are transferred to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which manages the future care and placement of those children.

So it's ORR that places children in facilities like Southwest Key shelters. So like I said, Southwest Key was the largest provider of shelter for unaccompanied migrant children. And as we'll talk about, Southwest Key was sued by the Biden administration last year over sexual harassment claims. But before that, in 2018, the New York Times did an investigation into Southwest Key for financial impropriety, i.e. funneling government funds through for-profit companies to convert the government funds to private money. This investigation ultimately led to the resignation of the CFO and founder of the organization, but Southwest Key maintained

its government contracts. So in the lawsuit filed by the Biden administration last year, the administration alleges that from 2015 to 2023, Southwest Key ignored a pattern or practice of sexual abuse and harassment of unaccompanied children by its employees. This includes sexual abuse and rape, sexual solicitation, solicitation of nude photos, requests for sexually inappropriate relationships, sexual comments and gestures, voyeurism and leering, and inappropriate touching. Per the complaint, the children were threatened to remain silent.

One worker in El Paso, Texas even threatened to kill the families of a five-year-old, eight-year-old, and 11-year-old if they revealed the abuse. The lawsuit says boundaries were consistently violated, protocols to prevent abuse were not followed, interpretation services were not consistently offered to children who did not speak English or Spanish, and the facility violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating on the basis of sex and engaging in sexual harassment. I have not yet found any information

that would signal that the Biden administration took action to remove the children from these shelters or close the shelters when the lawsuit was filed. Per the complaint, the administration sought monetary damages to compensate those harmed by Southwest Key. But at the time of the lawsuits filing, a Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment beyond the lawsuit announcement when asked whether the department recommended that children be removed from the shelters or that the government contracts be terminated. However, in a new press release issued yesterday, it actually, there were two new press releases, one by the DOJ, one by the HHS. Both departments say that no new children will be placed in those

shelters and any that are still there have been moved to other shelters. At the same time, the DOJ has dropped the lawsuit against the nonprofit finding that it was unnecessary and that the removal actions were more proactive. Notably this dismissal was voluntary. In other words, in litigation, the party being sued can file a motion to dismiss based on various grounds and hope that their motion gets granted and the case against them gets dismissed. In this case, if the DOJ hadn't chosen to voluntarily dismiss the suit, Southwest Key probably would have filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that

the children have been removed from the shelters and therefore the issue is now moot. It ultimately would have been up to the judge to decide whether to dismiss the case or whether to let it continue so as to compensate those that were affected at one point in time by the abuse in the shelters, regardless of whether they were still at the shelters. However, another route if the party being sued doesn't file a motion to dismiss is, you know, when the party that brought the lawsuit chooses to voluntarily dismiss it and a party could choose to do that for a few reasons. Maybe the issue is moot and they're getting ahead of it. Maybe they don't want to litigate anymore

Maybe they can't afford to litigate anymore, but that's what happened here. It was voluntarily dismissed So the government voluntarily dismissed the suit while at the same time Announcing that these shelters would be closed and the kids would be removed HHS Secretary Kennedy said in a statement quote, this administration is working fearlessly to end the tragedy of human trafficking and other abuses of unaccompanied alien children who enter the country illegally. Today's action is a significant step towards ending this appalling abuse of innocence, end quote. Similarly, A.G. Bondi who runs the DOJ said quote, quote, Securing our border and protecting

children from abuse are among the most critical missions of the Department of Justice and the Trump administration. She said, Under the border policies of the previous administration, bad actors were incentivized to exploit children and break our laws. This ends now. End quote. Speaking of immigration-related lawsuits, though, the state of Washington is suing a county within Washington as well as the county's sheriff's office for holding undocumented immigrants in

custody based on their immigration status. And pay attention to this story, not like you're not paying attention right because you love everything that I talk about, but pay particular attention because we actually will revisit the story in the critical thinking segment So according to the complaint Adams County is allegedly holding immigrants in custody Helping federal agents question people in custody and sharing personal confidential information of these individuals with federal officials Washington's Attorney General says these practices violate a state law called the keep Washington working act a state law called the Keep Washington Working Act, which is a 2019 law that restricts the ability of local authorities to participate in the enforcement of federal immigration law. The related portion of that state law says it is not the primary purpose of state and local law enforcement agencies

or school resource officers to enforce civil federal immigration law, and that state and local law enforcement agencies may not provide non-publicly available personal information about an individual to federal immigration authorities in a non-criminal matter, or give federal immigration authorities access to interview individuals about non-criminal matters unless required by federal law or court order. That law also says that a person cannot be detained solely for the purpose of determining immigration status and that no state or local law enforcement officer can enter into an arrangement that would grant federal civil immigration enforcement authority

or power to state and local law enforcement. Now this isn't the first time the state attorney general in Washington has accused Adams County specifically of these actions. In fact, in late 2024, the attorney general's office and Adams County Sheriff's Office entered into a good faith settlement to resolve prior violations of this same state law. However, the Sheriff's Office now says

that the state law is unlawful and that it violates federal law. Specifically, a federal law that says no federal, state, or local government entity or official can restrict any other government entity or official from sending or receiving information to the Federal Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding the citizenship or immigration status of an individual. The state attorney is requesting that the court declare Adams County liable of the actions alleged and prevent Adams County from further engaging in the same behavior

Okay, let's move on to another lawsuit this one against USAID a senior official USAID is now facing a lawsuit led by democracy forward and public citizenigation Group for allegedly instructing employees to destroy USAID documents by shredding and burning them. According to the lawsuit, senior official and USAID Acting Executive Secretary Erica Carr, a Biden administration appointee who has served in that role since January 2021, sent an email to employees on March 10th which noted that the agency was quote, clearing its classified safes and personnel documents, end quote. It directed employees to quote,

shred as many documents first and reserve the burn bags for when the shredder becomes unavailable or needs a break, end quote. Carr also stated the directive would take place all day on March 11th, beginning at 9.30 AM. And this directive came after Secretary of State Marco Rubio made that announcement that 83% of USAID programs would be cancelled. Now it's not entirely clear what documents have already been destroyed per CARS instruction,

but according to the American Foreign Service Association, there is some concern that classified and sensitive documents pertaining to the mass firing of USAID workers by the Trump administration may have been targeted. AFSA, which is a union that represents USAID workers, specifically noted concern that classified documents detailing the termination of two USAID employees fired last month for denying DOJ access to classified material may have been destroyed. The Trump administration responded that they were investigating whether documents were still being destroyed later in the day on March 11th when that lawsuit was filed. So the parties that filed this lawsuit, Democracy Forward and Public Citizen

Litigation Group, are asking the court for an emergency restraining order under the Federal Records Act in an attempt to preserve the documents. The Federal Records Act requires agencies and agency heads to make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, and procedures in order to preserve information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the government and of persons directly affected by the agency's activities.

The records management program only permits documents to be destroyed on such a rapid basis in the event of an extreme emergency, which pertains to a quote, state of war between the United States and any other nation, or when hostile action appears imminent. End quote. The president and CEO of Democracy Forward stated quote, federal records belong to the American people, not any administration looking to cover its tracks. We are taking immediate legal action to stop this reckless purge before irreparable damage is done to an institution that plays a critical role in global stability and humanitarian aid. End quote. The judge overseeing the case ordered the parties to

submit their briefs by Wednesday of this week, and if the judge does decide to grant the temporary restraining order, the current administration would be barred from taking any further actions to destroy any other documents. And another court case, this one stemming from the arrest and detention of Mahmoud Khalil, that former Columbia University student who led pro-Palestine protests on campus at the end of last year. So I included this story as a quick hitter when it first came out, but since then there have been some new developments.

A little bit of background first, Mahmoud Khalil is a Palestinian national who grew up in Syria, but moved to the United States in 2023 to get his master's degree from Columbia University. He was a leader of the pro-Palestine protests that took place on Columbia's campus at the end of last year. And he was selected to be a negotiator with Columbia on behalf of Columbia's

Apartheid Divest, which is a student organization that demanded Columbia divest from its financial ties with Israel. Khalil lives in New York, he's married to an American citizen, he has a green card, and he is a permanent resident here in the United States Upon taking office president Trump issued an executive order which in part ordered the deportation and student visa cancellations for all those who support Hamas and took part in the pro-palestine protests on campuses Across the country at the end of last year in addition to that order there is a federal law called the immigrationigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. And in part, what that law says is that the Secretary

of State can declare someone deportable if that person, quote, would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences to the United States, end quote. So in accordance with the President's order and that federal law, last week or I should say over the weekend, federal officials arrested Khalil, revoked his green card, detained him at a facility in New Jersey, and then ultimately transferred him to a facility in Louisiana. In response to Khalil's arrest, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has cited Khalil

being a supporter of Hamas, Khalil taking part in turning American universities upside down, and Khalil being compl in turning American universities upside down, and Khalil being complicit in what are quote, clearly crimes of vandalization and shutting down learning institutions, end quote. White House press secretary, Caroline Levitt, said Tuesday that Khalil should be deported because he organized quote, protests that not only disrupted college campus classes and harassed Jewish American students and made them feel unsafe on their own college campus, but also distributed pro-Hamas propaganda." So yesterday, a judge heard arguments from Khalil's lawyers and the government as to why Khalil should or should not be released to a New York detention center where his immigration proceedings should or should not take place.

Khalil's attorneys want him transferred to New York. The government does not. After the hearing, the judge said Khalil has to remain in the Louisiana facility for now, but that both sides are to submit a joint letter by Friday detailing further plans for arguments, and she'll make a more permanent decision at that point. Also during arguments yesterday, Khalil's lawyer said they have been unable to have privileged conversations with Khalil since he's a thousand miles away, and all communications have been monitored by the government. In response, the judge said Khalil is entitled to one privileged call a day, so one yesterday, one today. Again, because on Friday, she'll be making a more permanent ruling on the matter of whether

he'll be transferred to New York. Earlier in the week, the same judge blocked a deportation order for Khalil, saying he would remain in the United States until the court weighs in on Khalil's challenge to his arrest and detention. So we'll see tomorrow what the judge ultimately decides to do about Khalil's detention. Will he stay in Louisiana or will he be transferred to New York? That is what we will find out. And quickly, in the most recent update related to the story, 98 people were arrested today after they gathered at Trump Tower in New York City to protest over Khalil's arrest.

The protest began shortly after noon. Demonstrators dressed in red shirts. The shirt said things like not in our name and Jews say stop arming Israel. They conducted a sit-in in the Trump Tower lobby and all of the protesters have since been removed Those that were arrested have been charged with trespassing obstructing governmental administration and resisting arrest Okay, second and final break here. I will be right back for another story some quick hitters and critical thinking Want to own part of the company that makes your favorite burger? Now you can with partial shares from TD direct investing you can own less than one full share Welcome back. I told you before the break, I only had one more story for you, but I actually have two. So first, let's quickly talk about the new urgent safety recommendations from

the National Transportation Safety Board amid the January DC crash that happened in the Potomac. So these recommendations were issued this week in an attempt to improve airspace safety in the area of the Reagan National Airport by focusing on helicopter operations, more specifically pausing all helicopter traffic over the four-mile stretch over the Potomac when planes are landing on nearby runways 15 and 33. The recommendation aims to update a previous policy, which says helicopters in that area of the Potomac can fly near planes with a 75-foot minimum vertical distance between them so long as they're flying at the maximum authorized altitude of 200 feet.

Importantly, the NTSB's primary function is to identify critical challenges and release these to the government, the airline industry, and the public, but it cannot enforce them without the compliance of the FAA, which did agree to adopt the recommendations the same day they were issued. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said that prior to the NTSB recommendations, data about the prominence of near-miss events at the Reagan National Airport wasn't effectively analyzed. Duffy is currently in the process of discussing accommodations for military and Department of Defense aircrafts with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Exceptions are expected to be made for air travel relating to the president, vice president, life-saving missions, or law enforcement, but the recommendations are said to have been implemented on Tuesday.

Now for the final story before we get into quick hitters and critical thinking. I received quite a few requests to explain this one, so I figured I would include it as a shorter story. Within the last few weeks, President Trump issued two different executive orders which suspended the security clearances for two DC law firms, Perkins-Coy and Covington & Burling. So a little background on each of these law firms as it pertains to these new orders. Perkins-Coy is the firm that represented Hillary Clinton in 2016 and ultimately hired a company to create the Russian dossier. An attorney from that firm was actually indicted for lying to the FBI about an alleged secret channel

of communications between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank. Covington and Burling is the firm that helped special counsel Jack Smith in his reports against Trump in the election interference case and in the classified documents case, and they currently represent Jack Smith.

So a few weeks ago, President Trump sent an executive order which suspended security clearance for Covington, directed the attorney general and heads of government agencies to terminate any engagement with Covington, and directed the Office of Management and Budget to review all government contracts with Covington. Then last week, the president signed another executive order which suspended the security clearance held by Coy pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with national interest, directed all government contracts with Coy to be reviewed, and directed officials to refrain from hiring

employees of Coy unless they get a waiver from the head of their agency. Now can he do this? Can the President do this? This is the question I've gotten the most. It seems like yes, but there are arguments that would point towards no. Welcome to the law. That's just how it is. So on the yes side, the government has broad authority to grant or rescind clearance and to control federal contracts for reasons of economic policy. On the no side, some argue that this is a due process and first amendment issue. More specifically, that the firms have no opportunity

to challenge the accusations against them, as well as a revocation of security clearance, and that they have a right of association under the First Amendment to represent whichever clients they choose to. So Coy has since sued the administration, arguing that the order is unconstitutional. A judge has since granted Coy's request for a temporary restraining order in part, which essentially prevents the Trump administration from barring Perkins-Coy employees from accessing government buildings,

but the TRO does not apply to the security clearance reviews. So the government can still go ahead and assess whether Perkins-Coy should have security clearance. That is where we're at there. Okay, now let's do some quick hitters. The consumer price index rose 2.8% in February from a year earlier, which is down 3% from January. I like to give this reference

whenever we talk about inflation because these numbers can be a bit confusing. But the consumer price index is the change in price of a consumer's theoretical basket of goods from one year to the next. So the cost of consumer goods, which can include everything from food to gas to airfare to haircuts to cigarettes to car repairs, the list goes on, is up 2.8% from last February. The Fed's target is 2%. So we still wanna get that number down a little bit, but 2.8% is down from the 3% in January,

which is a sign that inflation is slowing and not re-accelerating. The White House withdrew the nomination of Dave Weldon this morning. He was nominated to be the director of the CDC. Weldon was scheduled to appear before the Senate committee today for his confirmation hearing, but that hearing was canceled at the last minute and his nomination was withdrawn. Weldon is an internal medicine doctor who served in the House from 1995 through 2009. And while in Congress, he sponsored a bill that would have banned mercury from

vaccines. Since then, he's made comments showcasing his skepticism of vaccines. So multiple GOP senators today said that they had their own concerns with Weldon's nomination pointing to his vaccine comments and general lack of preparation. And a source familiar with the nomination said that it became clear that the votes in the Senate were not there to get him confirmed, so it would have been a futile effort. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court

to allow it to proceed with its plans to end birthright citizenship. In its appeal, the Trump administration argues that the lower court went too far in issuing an injunction, blocking his policy, and asked the Supreme Court to limit the impact of that injunction. This appeal to the Supreme Court comes one day after an appeals court rejected the administration's request to lift the lower court's injunction. This morning, SpaceX and NASA cancelled an attempt to bring two astronauts home from the ISS, two astronauts who have been in space for nine months after Boeing's Starliner spacecraft experienced an issue and was unable to bring them back. NASA had originally planned for only a week-long stay.

About 30 minutes before liftoff today, SpaceX and NASA announced a ground hydraulic issue, which would prevent the launch from taking place, but notably, everything with the actual rocket and spacecraft was fine, so the launch has been rescheduled for Friday evening. A federal judge today ordered six different federal agencies to immediately reinstate probationary employees that were fired last month as part of the mass layoffs. The order applies to the Department of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, and Treasury. The judge said he was issuing the ruling because he believes the Office of Personnel Management unlawfully directed the layoffs of probationary

employees. The next one isn't so political, but Southwest Airlines announced yesterday that it'll now start charging for checked bags, which marks the end of the airline's bags fly free policy. Southwest announced various changes that it'll be making to drive revenue growth and return to a level of profitability expected by its shareholders, and the expiration of bags fly free is one of them. The change will apply to flights booked on or after May 28th of this year, and the exception here is if you are a Rapid Rewards A-list Preferred member or you're traveling on business select fairs. All 40 illegal immigrants being held at

Guantanamo have apparently been sent back to the to the United States and are being held in Louisiana. The migrants were transferred back on ICE aircraft and according to the to US defense officials the group includes 23 high-threat illegal aliens who were held at the detention facility on base and 17 migrants who were held at the migrant base migrant operations center on base. At this time, we don't have an exact reason why the migrants were brought back, though many are speculating it has to do with cost. The EPA administrator announced yesterday that the EPA will undertake 31 deregulatory actions to advance President Trump's executive order titled Unleashing American Energy. Some

of these actions include reevaluating the Biden administration's Clean Trucks Plan, reconsidering a burdensome greenhouse gas reporting program, decreasing the risk of future catastrophic wildfires, addressing some of Obama's and Biden's climate measurements, and much more. And finally, the government is set to shut down tomorrow at midnight if Congress does not pass the continuing resolution that is currently before the Senate.

The continuing resolution, which I covered on Monday, passed the House in a 217 to 213 vote, but it still has to get 60 votes in the Senate, which may or may not happen. If you want to learn more about that continuing resolution, tune into Monday's episode, but again, that deadline is tomorrow at midnight. Okay, time for some critical thinking. Let's go back to the lawsuit filed by Washington State over illegal immigration. As always, my first ask is that you check in with your initial thoughts. Are you leaning in favor of the state's position or are you leaning

in favor of the sheriff's position and why? What is your reason? Now, if you support the state and you therefore believe that local law enforcement should not assist federal immigration authorities, I want you to consider a scenario where a known violent criminal is released to the public either because, you know, maybe the sheriff's office doesn't have enough to detain him or local police are prohibited from sharing information with ICE despite knowing he's in the country unlawfully. Naturally, in this case, some people are bound to have concerns

about how his release might endanger public safety. How would you respond to those concerns? Now, if you oppose the lawsuit and you support the sheriff's office and believe that the sheriff's office is justified in cooperating with federal immigration enforcement, imagine a scenario where an undocumented immigrant who also happens to be the victim of domestic violence is too afraid to report the crime because they fear they may be handed over to federal authorities. Does this situation change your stance at all? And why or why not? Finally, regardless of what side you're on, I want you to come up with one

argument for the other side. So if you're on the state side, come up with an argument for the Sheriff's Office. If you're on the Sheriff's Office side, come up with an argument for the state. That is what I have for you today. Have a great weekend. Don't forget to subscribe to the newsletter. You can find the link in this episode description and I will talk to you on Monday. 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.