UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (3/20/25): JFK Assassination Documents Released. PLUS Did the President Trump Remove the Prohibition on Segregated Facilities? And More.

Episode Date: March 20, 2025

Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: Trump Admin and Judge Fight Over Deportation Flights Trump Threatens Impeachment Against Judge; Chief Justice Roberts Responds Judge Says DOGE's Actions Related to USAID Likely Unconstitutional Judge Says Trump's Ban on Transgender Service Members Likely Unconstitutional JFK Assassination Documents Released; Here's What We Learned and Why It's Important Quick Hitters: Astronauts Back Home, UPenn Loses $175M in Federal Funds, Ben & Jerry's CEO Fired, HHS Announces Operation Stork Speed, Interest Rates Kept Steady, Khalil to be Transferred to New Jersey Rumor Has It: Does the Trump Admin Have a "List" of Banned Words? Did the Dept. of Defense Remove Webpages About Women and POC? Did Trump Remove on Prohibition on Segregated Facilities? Is California Asking for a $3B Loan Because of Undocumented Immigrants? Critical Thinking Segment 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

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, March 20th. Let's talk about some news. Starting with an update to Monday's episode, as we know, there's a bit of a court battle brewing between the Trump administration and US District Court Judge James Boasberg. Judge Boasberg is the one that issued that order last Saturday night that said, any deportation flights carrying anyone being deported under the Alien Enemies Act must either be turned around or grounded. Keep in mind, there were two orders issued that day by the same judge. The first order specifically prohibited the Trump administration from deporting the five individuals that sued the administration. The second order extended that first order and said the Trump administration could not deport any non-citizens under the Alien Enemies Act and that

any plane carrying deportees has to either be grounded or turned around. So that second order was given around 6 45 p.m. The first deportation flight order was given around 6.45 p.m. The first deportation flight left the United States at 5.26 p.m. It was likely out of U.S. airspace by 5.40 p.m. The second flight left the U.S. at 5.45 p.m. was likely out of U.S. airspace by 6 p.m. The third flight left the U.S. at 7.37 p.m.

was likely out of U.S. airspace byspace by 8 pm. So obviously those first two flights had already taken off and were out of US airspace by the time the judge issued his oral order at 6.45 pm, but that third flight departed the US about an hour after the oral court order. Naturally, the judge wanted to know why. So the judge schedules a fact-finding hearing for Monday, tells the Trump administration to come prepared to explain itself. The judge's intent here was to determine whether the administration knowingly violated the court's order, because if it did, the judge could hold the administration in contempt. So at the hearing, the administration argued that the judge's Saturday order didn't actually take effect until it was put into writing later that evening.

And the judge responded to this by saying, quote, When I said directly to turn those planes around, the idea that my written order was pithier, that this could be disregarded. That's a heck of a stretch. End quote. The administration further argued that once the planes are in international waters, the president has authority outside of the Alien Enemies Act, which wouldn't have been subject to either of the judge's orders over the weekend because the judge's orders only applied specifically to this Alien Enemies Act. The associate deputy attorney general for the United States didn't give much information about the planes besides stating that the only information she was authorized to provide is that no plane took off after the written order came through. When the judge asked the associate deputy attorney general why she couldn't provide further information, she cited national security concerns with flight patterns and quote things of

that sort, end quote. So because not much information was given at Monday's hearing, the judge gave the administration until Tuesday at noon to provide additional information, which was to include a sworn statement declaring that no one on any flight departing the US after 725 p.m. on March 15th was removed solely on the basis of the Alien Enemies Act, a sworn declaration setting forth when the presidential proclamation regarding the Alien Enemies Act was signed, when it was made public, and when it went into effect, the government's best estimate of the number of individuals

subject to the proclamation currently remaining in the United States and how many are currently in US custody, and the government's position on whether and in what form it will provide answers to the court's questions regarding the particulars of the flights. Tuesday comes around, the administration files a notice with the court that essentially says, attached is our declaration in response to three of your four requests. However, as to the fourth request regarding the government's position on whether and in what form it will provide answers regarding particulars of the flights, the government maintains that there is no justification to order this additional information from the administration and doing so is inappropriate

given that there was no violation of the court's order in the first place. In the attached declaration, we did get some clarity as to the government's position on that third flight that left after the oral court order. So, an acting field director of enforcement and removal operations for ICE wrote that the third plane departed after 7.25 p.m. when the judge's written order was officially entered into the court docket, but all individuals on that third plane had Title VIII final removal orders and thus were not removed solely on the basis of the Alien Enemies Act Proclamation at issue. Nonetheless, the judge still wants the administration to answer the question of whether and in what form

the administration would provide answers regarding the particulars of the flights. So the judge again directed the government to answer his question, this time in a sealed court filing, by noon the following day on Wednesday. Wednesday rolls around, Judge Boasberg gave the administration another extension

and said that the administration could choose to invoke what's called the state secrets doctrine, which protects sensitive national security information from being disclosed in civil litigation. But the administration would have to explain why it was choosing to do that over providing the requested details on the deportation flights. So that's where we're at with this case, but there's actually a related storyline here that we have to talk about as well. On Tuesday, in the midst of everything that was going on in this case, President Trump called for the impeachment of Judge Boasberg. He wrote on Truth Social in part, quote, This radical left lunatic of a judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama was not elected president. He didn't win anything. I won for many reasons in an overwhelming mandate, but fighting illegal immigration may have been the

number one reason for this historic victory. I'm just doing what the voters wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the crooked judges I am forced to appear before, should be impeached." End quote. So let's talk briefly about impeachment, specifically impeachment of a federal judge. The impeachment clause of the Constitution tells us that one can be impeached for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Notably, though, there's a different section of the Constitution which specifically pertains to judges that says, judges shall hold their offices during good behavior. And what that implies is that the bar for impeaching and removing a federal judge might

be lower than the bar for impeaching and removing, say, a president or a vice president. But of course, the Constitution doesn't define good behavior, so it's left to interpretation. Historically, seven judges have been impeached for acts that violated professional ethics but were not explicitly illegal. As examples, Judge John Pickering and Judge Mark Delahaye were both impeached in the 1800s for intoxication on the bench. However, of the impeached judges in the past 100 years, there's been eight. Seven of those were impeached for actually committing a crime. Corruption, sexual assault, tax evasion, etc. Now, the process for impeaching a federal judge is the same as

impeaching the president, only Congress can do it. The House initiates the proceeding by bringing articles of impeachment against the judge and approving those articles with a simple majority vote. From there, a trial is held in the Senate where a two-thirds majority is required for conviction. If convicted, that is when a federal officer is removed from office. It's possible for someone to be impeached and not convicted. In fact, that's typical. But all this to say that the president has no legal say in impeaching a federal judge outside of swaying Congress to start the process, which is ultimately what Trump did, but we'll get there in a minute.

Now, because a call for impeachment by the president is unusual, we actually saw Chief Justice Roberts enter the ring here. Chief Justice Roberts is the Chief Justice on the Supreme Court bench, and following Trump's Truth Social Post, Chief Justice Roberts issued a rare but short two-sentence formal statement.

It says, quote, For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose. End quote. And of course, what he means by that is something we talk about a lot on this podcast, which is that if you don't like a court's decision or you lose a case, you appeal it to the next level of the federal court system. So let's go back to Trump swaying Congress. How did he do that? Well, within hours of his post on Truth Social, House Republicans introduced a four-page impeachment resolution against Judge Boasberg. The resolution for

Boasberg impeachment is based on high crimes and misdemeanors, specifically abuse of power. The resolution reads, quote, Chief Judge Boasberg, in violation of his oath of office, did knowingly and willfully use his judicial position to advance political gain while interfering with the president's constitutional prerogatives and enforcement of the rule of law. In doing so, Chief Judge Boasberg used the powers of his position to engage in actions that overstep his judicial authority. By making a political decision outside the scope of his judicial duties, he compromised the impartiality of our judicial system and created a constitutional crisis."

End quote. So that's where we're at with that. If Congress takes the resolution seriously, the House will have to adopt articlesicles of Impeachment and then hold a vote. So stay tuned for more developments down the road. Moving on to the next story, which is a court ruling about USAID. On Tuesday, a district court judge ruled that Doge's actions to temporarily shut down USAID operations likely violated the Constitution. Specifically, the judge cites the actions like permanently closing USAID headquarters, taking down its website, and engaging in mass terminations of contracts, grants, and personnel.

So this lawsuit was brought by 26 plaintiffs who are either still employed or contracted by USAID or were recently terminated. And it was filed against Elon Musk, the US Doge Service, and Doge. And what the plaintiffs asked for here was a preliminary injunction to stop Musk, Doge, and the US Doge service and Doge. And what the plaintiffs asked for here was a preliminary injunction to stop Musk Doge and the US Doge service from doing various things

related to USAID. Now, whenever a court is considering a preliminary injunction, it takes into account a few factors. One, are the plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits of their claim once the court hears arguments? Two, if the injunction is not granted, will the plaintiffs suffer irreparable harm? Three, do the balance of equities tip in

in the plaintiffs favor? And four, is the injunction in the public's interest? If those questions are answered in the affirmative, the injunction will be granted. So when we say that the court found that Doge's actions to temporarily shut down USAID operations likely violated the Constitution, we're going back to that first question. Are the plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits of their claim?

Because the plaintiffs claim that Elon Musk Doge and the US Doge service violated the Appointments Clause and the Separation of Powers Principle of the Constitution. So when finding that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claims, the court is basically saying it's likely that the defendants violated the Constitution. Now to touch on those claims quickly, the Appointments Clause essentially says that officers of the United States have to be appointed in the manner set forth in the Constitution. So some officers have to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Other officers are simply appointed by the President alone, but with congressional approval. And what I mean by that is Congress says, hey, it's okay if the President alone appoints a person for this position, we're just giving that okay. So in this case, the plaintiffs argue that Musk

has exercised significant authority in his position as a senior White House advisor and therefore he should have been appointed. And the court agreed that this claim will likely succeed upon further arguments and further consideration. The separation of powers principle basically says that each branch of government has its own function and authority, and that one branch is not to encroach on another. But the plaintiffs argue that the defendant's actions related to USAID exceed the authorities of the executive branch

and encroach on the authorities of the legislative branch. The focus of their argument is that the defendants have acted to eliminate USAID, which is a federal agency created by statute, and in doing that have usurped Congress's authority to create and abolish offices. And again, the court agreed that this claim is likely to succeed upon further arguments and further consideration. So the court ultimately granted parts of the plaintiff's preliminary injunction requests and denied other parts.

As examples, DOJ team members who have total control over USAID computer systems have to reinstate access to email payments, security notifications, and other electronic systems including restoring deleted emails for current USAID employees and contractors. But the defendants are still allowed to take action in connection with USAID despite Musk not being appointed. The judge said that he'll handle that request down the road because that's a more broad request he didn't feel comfortable granting it at this point. So that's what's going on with this USAID case. Let's take our first break here and I'll be right back.

Welcome back. Staying on the topic of law, a judge has blocked President Trump's attempt to ban transgender people from serving in the military. The judge found that the president's executive order likely violates the due process clause of the Constitution, finding that it was motivated by animus and not by legitimate concern for military efficacy. So basically this lawsuit was brought by eight service members who are transgender, have been placed on administrative leave, and do face potential involuntary separation from the service. The service members allege that the ban violates the due process clause of the

Fifth Amendment because it treats them differently than similarly situated people. And by the way, I just want to clarify that when we typically think of equal protection, we think of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits states from treating people unequally under the law. The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause doesn't explicitly use the phrase equal protection, but it does require the federal government to ensure equal protection under the law. So that's why this is a Fifth Amendment Due Process Claim, not a 14th Amendment Equal Protection Claim.

The Trump administration defended its ban, arguing that the ban is essential for maintaining high standards of military readiness and cohesion, and that transgender individuals compromise readiness, unit cohesion, and overall discipline. The administration further argues that being transgender is incompatible

with the high standards expected of service members, which includes readiness, lethality, honesty, humility, and integrity. That gender ideology activists disregard the fundamental demands of military service, such as physical and mental fitness, selflessness, and teamwork. That transgender individuals cannot uphold an honorable and disciplined lifestyle as their expression of gender identity conflicts with values like humility and selflessness, and that the associated medical costs are too high.

Ultimately, as I said, the judge granted the plaintiff's preliminary injunction, which prohibits the administration from enforcing this ban. In granting that request, the judge found that 1. The plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their 5th amendment due process claim. 2. not issuing the injunction and allowing the ban to be enforced would cause immediate and irreparable harm to transgender service members. And 3. the harm to transgender service members outweighs any potential harm to the government. Notably, the judge did put a two-day hold on the injunction to allow the administration time to fight the injunction, so starting tomorrow, the administration will be blocked from enforcing its ban on transgender service members, assuming the administration doesn't

get the injunction overturned or stayed. Lastly, before we jump off to the next story, I do have this particular ruling linked in the sources section. I mean, I always have everything linked, but the reason that I wanted to make a note of this ruling is because the judge really dove into the history of transgender bands in the military. So it's a good resource if you want to learn about the history of these kinds of bands. Specifically until 2014 the US prohibited transgender people from serving in the military. That changed during President Obama's second term. Then in President Trump's first term, he called

for a ban on members of the military serving in a sex that was different from their birth sex. And that ban ultimately got modified by the then Secretary of Defense Mattis. Then President Biden came in and reversed course. And of course now here we are with President Trump. So it's just a pretty interesting and informative backstory. And she writes about it almost in a storybook kind of way. So it's pretty easy to follow. So again, that's linked in the sources section of this episode, which you can find a link to in this episode description. Now for the Kennedy files release. On Tuesday, the Trump administration released roughly 60,000 pages related to the assassination of former President John F. Kennedy.

Not all of these pages are new. In fact, most of them had been released in the past, but in the past they were redacted. Now they're not. According to the National Archives, prior to Tuesday's release, authorities had already published more than 99% of the approximately 320,000 documents that were reviewed under the 1992 JFK

Records Act. Of the 63,000 pages that were released this week, about 2,200 are actual documents. The rest are official memos, handwritten notes, pictures, blurry pictures, but pictures. So unfortunately, because there are so many pages, I can't come on here today and tell you everything we've learned from the new release because the reality is no one knows the full picture yet. It'll take months at least for people to get through all of them and AI obviously isn't yet capable of synthesizing all of it so we just don't have the full picture. But there are a few things we can talk about. So let's first start with a brief recap of what happened to Kennedy, some of the theories surrounding his death, and why this release was important, and then we'll talk about a few standout details in the newly released

pages. So in November of 1963, President Kennedy went on a two-day, five-city fundraising trip to Texas, while in Dallas traveling in a convertible, Kennedy was fatally shot in the head and neck. Lee Harvey Oswald was found to be the shooter. He was a former US Marine who later moved to the Soviet Union, where he unsuccessfully tried to become a citizen. Two days after the shooting, Oswald was shot and killed during a jail transfer by a Dallas nightclub owner named Jack Ruby. Since Kennedy's death, there have been theories as to who exactly killed Kennedy and whether Oswald acted alone.

A 2023 Gallup poll showed that 65% of American adults rejected the official assassination conclusion or think the assassination involved a conspiracy. That same poll found that 20% of those surveyed believed Oswald conspired with the US government, and 16% suspected he worked with the CIA. So let's talk about it. One week after JFK was shot, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed the Warren Commission via an executive order to investigate the assassination. Fun fact here, by the way, the Warren Commission was named after the then Supreme Court Chief

Justice Earl Warren. But when the Commission ultimately released its findings, which were that Oswald acted alone in killing Kennedy with two bullets, many experts critiqued it and pointed out flaws and failures in the report, such as neglecting witnesses, not following up on leads, and not investigating thoroughly enough. Importantly, while many of these experts found the report to be flawed, they didn't necessarily assert that these flaws meant that his assassination was a conspiracy. But second, the nature of the shots led some to

believe that Oswald didn't act alone. The Warren Commission report concluded that most likely three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8 to 7 seconds. Three cartridges were found in the location Oswald shot from, which supported this conclusion. The commission further concluded it's most likely one of the bullets struck both Kennedy and the governor who was sitting in front of him, saying that it likely went through Kennedy's neck and then struck the governor. A subsequent bullet then entered the back of Kennedy's head and exited through the upper right portion of his skull, and a third shot completely missed Kennedy and the car that he was in.

Now, the idea that one bullet was able to go through both Kennedy and the governor taking into account the car's layout seems improbable to some, which leads to the theory that there was a second shooter and Oswald didn't act alone. In January 1979, the House of Representatives Assassinations Committee reported a quote, high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy, end quote, and that quote, Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy, end quote. However, this report and its evidence is debatable. Nonetheless, the most popular theory stemming from Kennedy's assassination is that Oswald did not act alone and that the government or CIA was involved in some way. Now that we have that background, let's talk a little bit about the history of releasing

documents and why this new release is important. In 1992, the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 required all records related to the assassination to be publicly disclosed in full by October 26, 2017. President Trump, who was in office by the time that date rolled around, further delayed the disclosure, ordering the continued reevaluation of the redacted documents, though he did release about 2,800 documents during his presidency. When President Biden took office, he also delayed the release, giving agencies additional time to review in 2021, 2022, and 2023, though he released about 17,000 documents during his presidency.

But most recently, on January 23rd of this year, President Trump signed an executive order titled Providing Americans the Truth After Six Decades of Secrecy. And in it, he wrote that the continued withholding of information related to the assassination of JFK is not consistent with public interest and that the release of the records is long overdue. So here we are. Like I said, it's going to take months for people to sift through these pages and these documents. So far, there's been no solid evidence uncovered that would suggest that the initial explanation surrounding JFK's death is inaccurate. Instead, we're seeing lots of information about how the US gathered intelligence during the Cold War and their methodology, including a top secret operation called Operation Mongoose,

internal deliberations, and intelligence reports about Harvey Lee Oswald. For example, the documents confirm that Oswald visited both the Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico City before the shooting and included some details about Oswald's time in the Soviet Union between 1959 and 1962. There's also some detail about a Russian spy who allegedly defected to the United States in 1964, as well as details about CIA agent interactions with that individual. The documents also include details about the involvement of US intelligence agencies in attempting to overthrow foreign governments or assassinate

foreign leaders, though a lot of these details simply expand on efforts we're already aware of. As an example, the documents detail communication in 1963 between the CIA Director's Office and operatives in Cuba who were plotting to overthrow the Castro regime. Similarly, another document, a CIA memo, reveals details about covert activities aimed at removing the president of the Dominican Republic. So as you can tell, the documents don't really tell us much about the actual JFK assassination, at least not yet. The documents more so relate to general CIA matters. So that is what we know as of now, but you know, if we find out anything of substance, I will be sure to let you know.

Now for some quick hitters, the two astronauts who had been stuck in space for nine months are now back home. The SpaceX Dragon capsule carrying Williams and Wilmore splashed down in the waters off Florida shortly before 6 p.m. Eastern time on Tuesday after undocking from the ISS around 1 a.m. on Monday. If you haven't yet seen the video footage of the capsule landing in the water, it's actually pretty cool because dolphins come up to it and you know they're like kind of curious as to what's going on. So I'd recommend watching it if you haven't yet. In other news, the Trump administration has suspended roughly $175 million in federal funds for the University of Pennsylvania due to the university's policies supporting transgender athletes. UPenn does not currently have any transgender athletes competing on women's teams, though

in 2022 Leah Thomas, who was a competitive swimmer on UPenn's women's swim team, was the first known transgender swimmer to win a Division I NCAA title. And just as a note, in the past I've received questions about how the president is allowed to withhold funds appropriated by Congress. So just as a reminder, the Take Care Clause of the Constitution is what allows the president to delay or withhold authorized spending from Congress. When a president does delay or withhold authorized funds, it's called impoundment, and the president has to notify Congress

of his intention to do so. Ben and Jerry's parent company, Unilever, made the decision to remove Ben and Jerry's CEO. This decision follows a November 2024 lawsuit in which Ben and Jerry's accuses Unilever of silencing its public statements in support of Palestinian refugees. Upon announcing the removal of the CEO, the independent board of directors filed a complaint against Unilever,

arguing that Unilever's decision violates their merger agreement, which was signed in 2000. A spokesperson for Unilever said the decision to remove the CEO was made after good-faith consultation and discussion, and that they made repeated attempts to communicate with the board properly, and that they're disappointed the issue has been made public. The FDA announced Operation Stork Speed on Tuesday, which will expand options for safe, reliable, and nutritious baby formulas. The FDA said it will begin the nutrient review process,

increasing testing for heavy metals and other contaminants, ensure clear labeling on formula, collaborate with scientific bodies to address research gaps related to formula feedings long-term health outcomes, and more. This will mark the first comprehensive update and review of infant formula nutrients by the FDA since 1998. And the Federal Reserve decided to keep interest rates steady between 4.25 and 4.5%, where the rate has been since December.

The Fed also downgraded its collective outlook for economic growth and now see the economy accelerating at a 1.7% pace this year, which is down 0.4 percentage points from the last projection in December. And finally, a judge in New York has denied the Trump administration's request to dismiss Mahmoud Khalil's petition for habeas corpus, which is a request for a court to review the legality of one's detention. The New York judge further determined that Khalil's case should be transferred to New Jersey instead of Louisiana. And if you need to get caught up, I covered Khalil's case in more detail last Thursday, but at that point, when I spoke about it, there was a question of where Khalil would be detained and where his case would proceed. Remember, Khalil's case in more detail last Thursday, but at that point, when I spoke about it, there was a question of where Khalil would be detained and where his case would proceed.

Remember, Khalil is the former Columbia student who was arrested and almost deported for his involvement in the protests on Columbia's campus last year. Khalil was originally arrested in New York, but he was then transferred to New Jersey, which is where he filed his petition, and then he was subsequently transferred to Louisiana. However, the judge's new ruling states that because Khal he filed his petition, and then he was subsequently transferred to Louisiana. However, the judge's new ruling states that because Khalil filed his petition in New Jersey, neither New York nor Louisiana have jurisdiction over the matter, and therefore Khalil must be transferred back to New Jersey. The judge also kept in place an order barring the government from

deporting Khalil and said it will now be up to the New Jersey court to consider. Let's take our second and final break here. When we come back, we'll do rumor has it and critical thinking. And I do have a lengthy rumor has it segment for you today. Welcome back. Let's move on to rumor has it, my weekly segment where I gather recent rumors submitted by all of you on Instagram and do my best to either confirm, dispel or add context to them. Rumor has it that federal agencies have identified hundreds of words that it hopes to eliminate or decrease in its documents. Words like activism, advocacy, equity, disabilities, DEI, climate science, allyship, transgender, and more. Let's add some context.

According to the New York Times, who originally published the list of words, their version of the list only contains what they were able to uncover from investigating certain federal documents. Now, it says the actual list in full is likely much longer. A Trump administration official said, in response to this New York Times article, that no such official list exists and that any decision to remove or change language to comply with President Trump's executive orders are left to the discretion of the agency officials. Notably, an administration directive issued last month asked agencies to terminate any programs and withdraw any media promoting gender ideology,

which led to the deletion of certain words, phrases, and media across agency webpages. As far as specific instances that I personally can confirm, we do know of at least a dozen federal agency websites that either deleted or replaced words that are on this New York Times list. For example, the FAA job page removed the word diverse from the phrase, you'll be part of a diverse workforce. The State Department's

Office of Global Change deleted a sentence on climate change and the webpage for the Stonewall National Monument deleted the phrase transgender or queer and replaced it with LGB. So the short answer is yes, certain words have been replaced and deleted from certain government web pages and at the same time the White House has denied the existence of a quote-unquote shortlist of words that it's asked agencies to delete. Rumor has it that the Department of Defense removed webpages relating to women, people of color, and an image containing the word gay.

This is true. In response to President Trump's executive order ending DEI programs across the federal government, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered the department to remove content that highlighted diversity efforts in the military. An anonymous Pentagon official said that as many as 100,000 images might be removed from Pentagon databases. For example, a picture of Enola Gay, the plane that dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, was temporarily removed. A few of the articles

that were temporarily removed but have since been restored include a webpage about Jackie Robinson's military service, the Navajo Code Talkers, the Iwo Jima flag raiser, and a black medal of honor recipient. The Pentagon said these pages were scrubbed during an auto removal process, but did not elaborate on what that process was. Some of the articles related to the Navajo Code Talkers have been decommissioned, meaning they can now be found in the archive. Yesterday, Snopes reached out to the Department of Defense asking it to provide some clarity into the deleted webpages, and the Pentagon's press secretary responded with the following. He said quote, as Secretary Hegseth has

said DEI is dead at the Defense Department. Discriminatory equity ideology is a form of woke cultural Marxism that has no place in our military. It divides the force, erodes unit cohesion, and interferes with the services core war fighting mission. We are pleased by the rapid compliance across the department with the directive removing DEI content from all platforms. In the rare case that content is removed either deliberately or by mistake that is out of the clearly outlined scope of the directive, we instruct the components

and they correct the content accordingly." End quote. Now the next rumor is related to the one that we just did. So we'll touch on it quickly. Rumor has it that the Arlington National Cemetery website removed links to webpages about black, Hispanic, and female veterans buried at the site. This is true. The removed links include an African American history page, a Hispanic American history

page, and a women's history page, all from the notable graves section of the website. A cemetery spokesperson, when asked for comments, said, quote, We are proud of our educational content and programming and working diligently to return removed content to ensure alignment with the Department of Defense instruction 5400.17 and executive orders issued by the president. We remain committed to sharing the stories of military service and sacrifice to the nation with transparency and professionalism while continuing to engage with our community in a manner that reflects our core values. We are hoping to begin republishing updated education modules next week."

Rumor has it that President Trump signed an executive order getting rid of a requirement that prohibited segregated facilities. Let's add some context. In January, President Trump signed an executive order titled Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, which nullifies an executive order signed by former President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965. We talked about this order before when people were falsely stating that President Trump did away with the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. What the executive order did is it overturned a prior

executive order, but an executive order cannot revoke a law. Nonetheless, Johnson's order prohibited federal contractors from discriminatory employment practices based on race, color, religion, and sex. Consequently, a clause in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, which is the primary regulation for use by all executive agencies in acquiring supplies and services with appropriated funds, said that government contractors cannot maintain or provide for its employees any segregated facility. Last month, in compliance with the president's recent executive order, the General Services Administration issued this memo to all federal agencies announcing changes that should be made within the agencies to comply with the president's order.

And in that memo, the GSA wrote, quote, when issuing new solicitations or contracts do not include any of the following provisions and clauses. And it goes on to list nine different provisions and clauses. Included in that list is an equal opportunity clause, an affirmative action compliance requirement, and yes, the prohibition of segregated facilities. Now, the GSA is an independent agency that manages the basic functioning of various federal agencies. So when the GSA says don't include these clauses in future contracts, the various federal agencies won't include those clauses in future contracts. For example, the Department of Homeland Security and the NIH have already issued their own notices not to consider the segregation clause in the future. Importantly though, and I want to

highlight this, the GSA memo also says, quote, contractors are still covered by existing United States laws on civil rights and nondiscrimination. These laws apply whether or not the company is a government contractor." End quote. And a GSA spokesperson has also reiterated that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must be followed. Finally, rumor has it that California needs a $3 billion loan because of the cost of illegal immigrants.

Let's add some context. California's Department of Finance told state lawmakers last week that they need a $3.4 billion loan because the state is facing a shortfall on its Medi-Cal Health Program, which is a state Medicaid health care program supported by taxpayers. California's Department of Finance says there are many reasons for this shortfall, which yes includes undocumented immigrants. First, increased pharmacy costs. The department says high- cost drugs have taken a toll on the Medi-Cal budget, which already included

an additional 1.3 billion for pharmacy costs for the 2024-2025 budget, and 1.2 billion for the 2025-2026 budget. Second, senior enrollment. There are about 225,000 more seniors enrolled in Medi-Cal than before the pandemic, which is roughly a 40% increase. Seniors average around $15,000 more seniors enrolled in Medi-Cal than before the pandemic, which is roughly a 40% increase. Seniors average around $15,000 per year per person, compared to roughly $8,000 for others.

Third, undocumented immigrant coverage. The state originally estimated $5.8 billion would be sufficient to cover the undocumented immigrant population for the 2024-2025 budget, but the updated budget proposal estimates closer to $8.4 billion for the 2024-2025 budget and $7.4 billion for the 2025-2026 budget. Under Medi-Cal, undocumented children have been covered since 2016, young adults were added in 2020, older adults added in 2022, and all ages are now covered as of 2024. The $3.44 billion budget would come from California's General Fund, which is a specific account meant for economic uncertainties paid for by taxpayers. $3.44 billion is the maximum amount California can borrow and would

only cover Medi-Cal's bills through the end of March. Let's end this episode with some critical thinking and for today's segment, I want to revisit a story from Monday's episode. If you haven't listened to Monday's episode, don't worry, you can still participate in this. On Monday, we talked about the controversy that surrounds universal injunctions. So let's say you sue the Trump administration because you don't like ex-policy. Well, rather than the judge saying, okay, we're going to prohibit the administration from enforcing this policy against you, the plaintiff, we're going to prohibit the administration from enforcing this policy against the entire country. Now, some argue that district courts, which are

the lowest courts on the federal court system totem pole, should not have this power to control the entire country via one sweeping executive order. Others argue the court's job is remedial in nature, and if a universal injunction is, you know, the proper remedy for a given situation, then so be it. Notably, this is a bipartisan issue. President Biden asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue of universal injunctions during his administration, and now President Trump is doing the same thing. And that's because these universal injunctions often get in the way of presidents enforcing their policies, the policies that ultimately got them elected, right? So here's what I want you to think about.

I want you to think of a situation where you would find a universal injunction to be warranted, and then think of a second situation where you would find a universal injunction to be overreaching and unwarranted. Then once you've done that and you kind of have an idea of where you're comfortable with them, where you're not, try to identify a standard that the courts can use when issuing a universal injunction as a remedy. For instance, maybe the Supreme Court says, listen, we're not going to completely bar the district courts from being able to issue universal injunctions, but we realize universal injunctions may be being issued too frequently and we

need to do something about it. So here's what we'll do. We're issuing this new standard that says if blank, courts can issue universal injunctions. Otherwise, a court cannot. I want you to fill in that blank. What standard makes sense to you? That's what I have for you today. Have a fantastic weekend, and I will talk to you on Monday.