UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (3/24/25): Trump Moves Closer to Dismantling Education Department, Here's What You Need to Know. PLUS Social Security Changes Coming Next Week, and More.

Episode Date: March 24, 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: President Trump Signs Executive Order Aimed at Dismantling Dept. of Education. Here's What You Need to Know. DHS Ends Biden Administration CHNV Parole Program White House Taking Sponsorships for Annual Easter 'Egg Roll' Changes Coming to Social Security Next Week After New January Law Takes Effect Quick Hitters: Venezuela Agrees to Take Repatriation Flights, ICE and IRS Near Immigration Deal, Musk Calls for Legal Action After NY Times Report, Trump Takes Federal Layoff Order to Supreme Court, Supreme Court Won't Hear Climate Case, Will Hear Congressional Districting Case, Trump to Narrow April 2nd Tariffs, Imposes New Tariffs on Venezuelan Oil, 23 and Me Bankrupt, Alina Habba's New Role, Editor-in-Chief Receives Accidental War Plan Text from DoD 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 Monday, March 24th. Let's talk about some news. Obviously we have to start by talking about the education department. The big news from last week is that President Trump signed an executive order aimed at closing the department of education and returning education to the states. of order aimed at closing the Department of Education and returning education to the states. I want to talk not only about what the order says, but also the historic controversy behind the department, what the department actually does and does not do, and then answer some

frequently asked questions about what this order means for the future of things like student loans, federal funding, disability programs, and more. So let's start with a bit of history and talk about why the Education Department has been controversial for decades. Many people think that this debate is a new one or that this debate started with President Trump, but that's actually not the case. The Education Department has been controversial since it was created in 1979,

and it wasn't just Republicans that were against it, some Democrats were against it as well. Keep in mind, prior to the department's establishment, federal education programs were managed under the larger Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. That department was split in two and became the Department of Education and Department of Health and Human Services. The Education Department is one of the smallest departments in the federal cabinet. It's also the newest and it only accounts for about 4% of the U.S. budget. When President Carter signed the bill all those years ago, he argued that the creation of the department would eliminate unnecessary

bureaucracy, it would cut red tape, it would promote better service for local school systems, and even save tax dollars. Importantly, we have to talk about what was going on at that time. So the NEA or the National Education Association, which is a teachers union, made its first ever presidential endorsement to President Carter in 1976. To win the support of the NEA, President Carter promised a cabinet-level education department. However, during those first three years of Carter's administration, the administration faced some internal resistance in creating the department, mainly resistance from Congress. But as

we know, Congress ultimately passed the law that created the department. So let's talk about the arguments in the department's favor, which of course led to the department's creation, and then we'll talk about the arguments against it. The main argument at the time of the department's creation was that it made sense to bring together the different education-related activities that the federal government was responsible for. So there was an office of education within the Department of Health, Welfare, and Education, but other programs like the Head Start Early Childhood Program and Education Research and Development activities were overseen by other parts of the government.

So the thought was those activities could be better coordinated, maybe even operate more efficiently if they were brought together under one department. But again, there were people on both sides of the aisle that were against it. At the time, one house Democrat was quoted saying, the idea of the education department is a really bad one, but it's NEA's top priority. There are school teachers in every congressional district and most of us simply don't need the accervation of taking them on. That's not to say that everyone was against it because obviously Congress did end up creating

the department, but it's just to say that the initial opposition was somewhat bipartisan compared to what it is today. And that opposition really started with President Reagan, who beat Carter when Carter sought re-election. President Reagan's attempts to eliminate the Education Department were unsuccessful though. So let's talk about why people are against it. Keep in mind that Republicans are for small government. The smaller the federal footprint, the better. That's the main argument, that the department creates federal bloat and it overreaches into state and local authority by exercising too much control over certain matters like COVID

mask and vaccine mandates, unisex bathrooms, etc. Now, obviously those issues are more modern, but this to say that the main argument behind not wanting the education department is that the smaller the government, the better. The other argument is that education isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution. So they believe the framers intent was to leave education to the states. Otherwise, they would have included education in the Constitution. With that background, let's talk about what this executive order actually says. As we know, executive orders have a purpose and or a policy and then a directive for one or more federal officials to carry out that purpose or policy. So the purpose here, as

we've discussed throughout this conversation, is to decentralize education policy, reduce federal oversight, and return control of education to state and local governments. In support of this purpose, the order sets forth the argument that federal control over education has been ineffective, and it points to declining student performance in reading and math as evidence of systemic failure. Specifically that this year's National Assessment of Education progress showed 70% of eighth-graders were below proficient in reading and 72 were below proficient in math. The order criticizes the Education Department as an entrenched bureaucracy that fails to

directly educate students, but instead distributes funding and maintains a costly public relations office. The order highlights the department's role in managing over $1.6 trillion in student loan debt, comparing it to a major bank but with significantly fewer employees than that of a major bank. It asserts that shifting these responsibilities to more appropriate entities would improve efficiency and better serve students. Now, to facilitate this transition, and this is where the directive of the order comes into play, the order directs the Secretary of Education to take all necessary steps to dismantle the department while also ensuring the continuity of essential

educational services. The order mandates strict compliance with federal law regarding the allocation of federal education funds, including the requirement that any program or activity receiving federal assistance terminates illegal discrimination obscured under the label DEI or similar terms in programs promoting gender ideology. So now that you have this general understanding of the order, let's quickly talk about what the education department does and what it doesn't do. That way we can lay the groundwork for what might happen to some of the functions that the Education Department is currently responsible for. Let's start with the things that the Education Department doesn't do. The Education Department does

not hire teachers, school administrators, or create school boards. These positions and boards are hired and managed by state and local governments. The Education Department also does not directly run schools or create curricula. So these parts of the education system—hiring, school operations, curriculum, teacher certification, enrollment requirements—these things are already controlled by the states and local school districts. However, here's what the Education Department does have a hand in. For one, the Education Department provides guidelines, recommendations, and funding incentives

for states to adopt certain standards. The Education Department also oversees student loan programs, enforces federal anti-discrimination laws, and administers funding to K-12 schools as well as higher education in the form of grants for low-income schools, special education, and financial aid. So if the Education Department is dismantled, who will enforce civil rights laws? Who will administer funding? Who will oversee student loan programs? What happens to free meals? All of these are valid questions. Let's start with the enforcement of civil rights laws. Assuming the education department is dismantled, the DOJ would likely assume responsibility of enforcing civil rights laws. The DOJ is responsible for enforcing every other law in this country, so it would add civil

rights laws to the list of laws that it's already in charge of enforcing. However, education advocates have expressed concern that without the dedicated Office for Civil Rights, which is who currently enforces civil rights laws, and with a smaller DOJ team, there will be fewer investigations and less enforcement. Another change we may see is that currently the Education Department is required to investigate all civil rights complaints within 180 days of filing. But if and when enforcement goes to the DOJ, the DOJ would have discretion in either keeping that rule the same, changing it or doing away with it completely.

What about student loans? What would happen to those? President Trump said Friday, one day after this order was signed, that the Small Business Administration or SBA would take over the federal student loan portfolio. The student loan portfolio, as we mentioned earlier, totals $1.6 trillion, and President Trump said the SBA is ready to take over this portfolio immediately. It is unclear whether the federal student aid office, which employs about 1,000 people, would also move under the SBA, but that's certainly an option.

Now the reason the oversight of student loans would move to the SBA is because the SBA is already responsible for managing billions of dollars of loans per year. However, it's also worth mentioning that the Trump administration just announced it would cut 43% of SBA staff, so it's unclear whether those cuts would make a difference in the handling of federal student loans and loans generally, but it's worth noting nonetheless. As for concerns, some consumer advocates are worried that transferring the portfolio to the SBA could lead to errors or leaks of sensitive data. They argue the Treasury Department would have been better equipped to take on the portfolio

because it already collects debts through the Treasury offset program. In fact, President Trump had mentioned previously that the student loan portfolio would be transferred to either the Treasury Department, the Department, the Commerce Department, or the SBA, but obviously he settled on the SBA. Importantly, the transfer of student loans to the SBA is likely to face legal challenges under the Higher Education Act of 1965, which specifies that the Federal Student Aid Office should be managed by the Education Secretary. Obviously, if the Federal Student Aid Office moves to the SBA, it would no longer be managed by the Education Secretary. And because Congress created this law that says the Education Secretary has to oversee the Federal Student Aid Office, Congress

would likely have to act to either move the Federal Student Aid Office to the SBA or dismantle the Federal Student Aid Office completely. This is not because it was created by law not necessarily something the president can unilaterally change. I also want to note that moving the oversight of loans to the SBA would not be the first time an administration has removed functions from the education department and transferred them to a different department. In fact, the Obama administration moved some functions

of the student loan system to the Department of Treasury because of its stronger capabilities to collect on debts. That move ended up only being temporary because it resulted in higher management costs, but it was a function transfer nonetheless. Now, before we move on to the next question, I wanna quickly address FAFSA, or the Free Application for Federal Student Aid,

which many students use when applying to college. Reports are saying that FAFSA applications are likely to still be available amid all of these changes because it would be incredibly difficult to move or replace the system just because of how complex it is. So students who have already submitted the FAFSA application or who are planning to or being advised to continue to follow through with that application. Speaking of money though, let's talk about Pell Grants, Title I funding, and children with disabilities and disability programs. This includes IDEA, IEPs, and 504 plans.

Along with announcing student loans would be transferred to the SBA, President Trump also announced that the Department of Health and Human Services will be responsible for managing special needs programs. Trump said federal funds for Pell Grants, Title I, and resources for children with disabilities and special needs will be, quote, preserved in full and redistributed to various other agencies and departments that will take very good care of them." Importantly, students currently benefiting from student loans or Pell grants will continue to receive federal funding. I do want to highlight the fact that the administration cannot end IEPs or 504 plans. It also cannot end special education

funding. It cannot end any statutory legal right without congressional approval. Remember that presidential executive orders cannot overturn laws. Congress enacts laws, which means only Congress can change laws or overturn laws. The president cannot do that. So anything that is set in stone by law,

civil rights laws, Title I, IDEA, et cetera, the president cannot touch those. What happens to free meals if the Education Department is eliminated? Free meals in schools would not be affected by the elimination of the Education Department, and this is because the National School Lunch Program is funded and managed by the Department of Agriculture, not the Department of Education. So if anything were to happen to free lunches in schools or free meals in schools, it wouldn't have anything to do with the closure of

the Education Department. Finally, let's address these rumors that some schools would be forced to close or some state and local governments could be forced to raise taxes as a result of budget downsizing and the closure of the Education Department. On average, 90% of school budgets are paid for by local and state taxpayers. Schools only receive 10% of their funding from federal tax dollars, and only a fraction of that 10% is from the education department. So the closure of the education department would not have a substantial impact on most schools and most school districts. Now there are some localities that rely more so on federal funds, specifically rural school systems

with weak tax bases. Those areas rely more so on funding to pay teachers, pay for buses, buy classroom technology, those sorts of things. For instance, areas in Mississippi and Alaska depend on federal funds to fund more than 20% of school district costs. So those more rural areas may see more of an impact, but outside of those outlier situations, the lack of funds from the education department likely won't have much of an impact. And also that's assuming the funds

that are currently coming from the education department don't get transferred to a different department, right? If the funds do get transferred, then we obviously wouldn't see a change at all. Okay, before we officially move on to the next story, I do want to say that we will likely see this order challenged in court. And by the way, there's a reason this order calls on the education secretary to take all steps to close the department to the quote, maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law. Dismantling the entire Department of Education would require an act of Congress. And Republican lawmakers are already working on that legislation, but all this to say,

the President's executive order alone cannot get rid of the entire department. And the areas of the department that the order is eliminating, those that are not created by law, will likely also be challenged. So we have a ways to go with this, but you know I'll keep you updated along the way. Let's take our break here and I will be right back. My hair is my identity. It really, really is.

And as I get older, I'm really focused on maintaining the thickness and strength of my hair. I can already tell now that I'm in my 30s That my hair just feels different than it did in my 20s So it's something I'm really focused on and that's why I'm excited that neutrophil is a sponsor of today's episode Neutrophil can be used by both men and women and is the number one dermatologist recommended hair growth supplement brand It's trusted by over one and a half million people See thicker stronger faster growing hair

with less shedding in just three to six months with NutriFull. Whether you deal with hair thinning, hair shedding or other hair issues, NutriFull's science-backed whole body approach nourishes growth from within to help you achieve your best hair yet. And when I say whole body approach,

I mean NutriFull targets the key root causes of thinning stress, hormones, aging, nutrition, lifestyle and metabolism. So start your hair growth journey, NutriFull targets the key root causes of thinning stress, hormones, aging, nutrition, lifestyle, and metabolism. So start your hair growth journey with NutriFull. For a limited time, NutriFull is offering my listeners $10 off your first month's subscription and free shipping when you go to NutriFull.com and enter the promo code UNBIASED. Find out why over 4,500 healthcare professionals and stylists recommend Nutrifol for healthier hair. Nutrifol.com, spelled N-U-T-R-A-F-O-L dot com, promo code unbiased. That's Nutrifol.com, promo code unbiased.

Welcome back. On Friday, the DHS announced via notice in the Federal Register that it will be ending the parole programs of more than a half a million immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Now we've talked about this in the past, but I do want to recap the situation because it being published in the Federal Register is sort of the final step in ending this program. So this program was created under the Biden administration. It is called the CHNV Parole Program, which stands for Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and applies to individuals from these four countries who have compelling reasons for

entering the United States temporarily but don't qualify for a visa or other immigration benefits. This is typically for humanitarian reasons. To be eligible, an individual has to have a sponsor here in the United States who agrees to provide housing and other support as needed. They must pass national security and public safety vetting, possess an unexpired passport, have proper vaccinations, and agree to fly at their own expense to an interior U.S. port of entry rather than entering at points

of entry along the border. Those that were granted temporary protected status under the program had that status for two years before it expired. Now, this program initially only applied to those from Venezuela because of the political unrest that was and is happening there, and also to address the, at the time, the increasing number of Venezuelans crossing the southern border. But over time, the Biden administration expanded this program to apply to Haiti, Nicaragua, and Cuba. The program was not without issues, though. In July of last year, the program was actually suspended to address issues of fraud stemming from the sponsorship portion of the program, but then a month later, the program resumed with enhanced vetting. So that's a little bit of a background for you when it comes to

this program and who it's for and all that stuff. But with the new notice published in the Federal Register by the DHS, the CHNV program will come to an end and the DHS will start to remove any migrants who don't voluntarily leave the US in the next 30 days. Notably, the termination of this program is being challenged in the courts. The lawsuit was filed last month, but the notice in the federal register is essentially the administration proceeding with its plan while that litigation is pending. Now, it's possible a court comes in and says, hey, DHS, you can't deport anyone who had or has TPS status.

But for now, the administration is proceeding as planned. In other news, the White House is seeking corporate sponsorships for the White House Easter egg roll for the first time. Let's talk about it. And let's also talk about why we're talking about it. So the White House Easter egg roll, it's an annual event at the White House. It dates back to 1878. Nowadays tickets are free,

but they're allocated through an online lottery. In past years, the event has been mostly held without the use of taxpayer dollars. In fact, the American Egg Board, which is a marketing group for the egg industry, sponsors the thousands of eggs for the event, and the event is run by about 1200 volunteers. Any money raised by the event goes to the White House Historical Association, which

is a nonprofit educational organization. This year, the Trump administration is apparently trying to raise even more money for the White House Historical Association by selling sponsorships. So an outside event production company, which is the same company that planned the event during Trump's first administration, is seeking corporate sponsors for this year's Easter Egg Roll. The sponsorship offers range from $75,000 to $200,000 and depending on which package the sponsors go with, there's varying logo and branding opportunities.

The platinum sponsorship package, which is the most expensive at 200,000, comes with branding and visibility, a VIP experience, which includes brunch with the first lady, media exposure, as well as 150 tickets to the event. Just like in past years, all money raised will go to the White House Historical Association. Now, why are we talking about this? Honestly, we're talking about it because this was a headline

and I wasn't sure, when I read the headline, I asked myself, why is we talking about this? Honestly, we're talking about it because this was a headline and I wasn't sure when I read the headline, I asked myself why is this a story and I looked into it. So I figured many of you might not know why this is a story either. So I will tell you the concerns from some are over the administration's links to corporate backers. Donald Sherman, the chief counsel and executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told CNN he had never seen anything like this before, saying, quote, I understand there are corporate sponsors for the Easter egg roll. What I have not seen before is sort of the outright solicitation and the use of the imprimatur

of the White House to give corporate sponsorships, end quote. So that's why it made the news. But keep in mind, corporate sponsors have been End quote. So that's why it made the news, but keep in mind corporate sponsors have been used in the past. The difference now seems to be the amount of money that's being charged and the way the money is being raised. In other words, coming directly from corporate sponsors in exchange for brand recognition.

So if you saw the headline and you were confused by what the story was all about, now you know. At the very least, now you have some Easter egg roll history. Okay, let's talk about some changes to social security happening in about a week. In January, Congress passed the Social Security Fairness Act, which repealed the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset. So the Windfall Elimination Provision, or WEP, was a social security rule that reduced benefits if you are receiving both social security and a separate pension from an employer that

wasn't withholding social security taxes from your salary. The GPO, the government pension offset, reduced social security spousal or widow benefits for people who similarly received a pension from an employer that did not withhold Social Security taxes from their salary. These two provisions combined eliminated or reduced the benefits of more than 3.2 million people. So the new law that was passed in January and takes effect March 31st will not only increase the benefits for certain people but also allow certain types of people to receive benefits dating back to

January 2024. The average payout will be about $6,700. Another change is the Social Security Administration will start claiming up to 100% of benefit checks in cases of overpayment. So last year, the SSA capped the withholding rate for individuals who had been overpaid at 10% of the person's monthly benefit. Meaning if someone received an overpayment with the cap in place,

the SSA was only able to withhold 10% of each of the next monthly payments to make up for that overpayment. Prior to last year's cap and now moving forward, the SSA will start claiming up to 100% of benefit checks in cases of overpayment. Obviously, if a person was only overpaid by a little, there's no need to withhold an entire future payment. But this is to say that the SSA can now withhold an entire future payment if it needs to in order to make up for an overpayment. The SSA said that raising the rate back up to 100% from the March 27th will remain at the 10% rate, as will low-income seniors and disabled Americans.

Now it's time for some quick hitters, quite a few today. Starting with Venezuela. Venezuela reached an agreement with the United States to resume repatriation flights for Venezuelan migrants. This announcement marks the reversal of Venezuela's decision earlier this month to stop receiving flights from the United States over oil sanctions. And by the way, this is why those flights, those deportation flights last weekend that caused that whole court battle we talked about, went to El Salvador despite those on board being from Venezuela. It was because Venezuela wasn't accepting flights and El Salvador agreed to accept the flights.

Speaking of immigration, ICE and the IRS are nearing an agreement to allow immigration officials to use tax data to confirm the names and addresses of those suspected of being in the country illegally. We will revisit this story in the critical thinking segment, so just note that. Under this agreement, ICE would be able to submit the names and addresses of individuals to cross-check with the IRS's taxpayer records.

This would mark a shift in long-standing IRS policy, keeping taxpayer information strictly confidential. In fact, this deal comes after IRS officials turned down a request from the DHS last month for the names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses of 700,000 people.

On Friday, a report initially published by the New York Times that Elon Musk was set to receive a briefing on US military plans concerning China. Following the leak, Elon Musk referred to the report as maliciously false. He called for legal action against whoever was responsible and said discussing sensitive war plans with someone like him who does business in the Chinese markets would be inappropriate. The Department of Defense then released a memo saying it had initiated an investigation which would include the use of polygraph tests to identify the source of the disclosure of the information and said whoever was found to

be responsible would be referred to the DOJ for potential criminal prosecution. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court today to block a lower court's order, which mandates that it reinstates federal employees. Earlier this month, a San Francisco judge said the government had to reinstate more than 16,000 probationary employees who were fired as part of the mass layoffs, finding that the layoffs failed to comply with required legal procedures. In today's emergency appeal, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to put that order on hold because it says it violates the separation of powers principle.

If granted, the administration would not have to rehire the probationary employees pending litigation, but if denied, the administration would have to rehire those roughly 16,000 probationary employees while that lawsuit plays out. Speaking of the Supreme Court, the justices declined to hear an appeal today from a youth group attempting to force the government to address climate change.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that the federal government's inaction on climate change has infringed on their fundamental constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, and is discriminatory to young people who will disproportionately experience the destabilized climate system. Importantly, this group has lost in federal courts repeatedly, and both Republicans and Democrats have urged the dismissal of the suit, aside from 42 Democratic lawmakers that joined the plaintiffs in urging Supreme Court review.

And one more quick hitter out of the Supreme Court. Today, the Supreme Court said it will address Louisiana's congressional map fight and whether or not it was drawn constitutionally. In 2022, Louisiana adopted a map that had only one majority black district out of six, but because one-third of the state's population is black, the map was challenged in federal court as a dilution of black voters. And in 2022, the legislature drew a new map with two majority black districts. However, once that new map was drawn, 12 self-identified non-African

American voters have sued. The state of Louisiana states that they struggle to adhere to both the 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act, which prevents denied access to voting based on race. So now it'll be up to the Supreme Court to resolve. The White House is reportedly planning to narrow the tariffs that are set to take effect on April 2nd. Previously, a wide range of broad tariffs were set to be put in place next week, referred to as Liberation Day by the administration. But Bloomberg now reports that some countries will be exempt, and sectoral-specific tariffs

may also be delayed. The White House has told Axios that no final decision has been made, but because Liberation Day is reported to be not as harsh as expected, stocks did jump today in early trading. Speaking of tariffs, though, President Trump announced a 25% tariff on any country that buys oil and gas from Venezuela, saying the country is purposefully and deceitfully sending criminals into the United States. The tariff will be applied under what's called a secondary tariff, which means any country that buys Venezuelan petroleum

will be forced to pay a 25% tariff on any trade they do with the United States. Yesterday, genetic testing company 23andMe filed for bankruptcy after its CEO announced her resignation. This company has experienced low sales and controversy over the protection of consumer data. And most recently on Friday, California's attorney general issued a consumer alert to 23andMe customers, reminding customers of their right to direct the deletion of their genetic data

under the Genetic Information Privacy Act and California Consumer Protection Act. After a data breach in 2023, the company paid a $30 million settlement, which that lawsuit had accused the company of failing to protect the privacy of nearly 7 million people whose personal information was exposed. Following the company's filing for bankruptcy, 23andMe shares dropped more than 50%. Today, President Trump announced that Alina Haba, his current White House counsel and former personal attorney, would serve as interim US attorney for the District of New Jersey. Haba will replace acting US

attorney John Giordano, who was appointed to the district less than one month ago by Attorney General Pam Bondi. And finally, Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, said today that he received text messages from US national security leaders that said military strikes were going to be made in Yemen within hours. Goldberg published his new article in The Atlantic Today, which is titled, The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans. In the article, he writes, quote, US national security leaders included me in a group chat about upcoming military strikes in Yemen. I didn't think it could be real. Then the

bombs started falling. End quote. Goldberg said the text came from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth via Signal and included precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing. The Trump administration has also said that the texts appear to be authentic. For today's critical thinking segment, I want to revisit that ICE-IRS deal. As a reminder, this segment is not meant to be difficult or too complex. It's just an exercise for our brain in a world where we are constantly told how and what to think.

First, check in with your initial thoughts. What do you think about this potential IRS ICE data sharing agreement? Do you think the government should allow immigration enforcement to access taxpayer data for purposes of immigration? Or do you believe it violates privacy protections? And why do you feel the way that you do? That's the most important part of this. If you are in favor of this agreement, imagine the situation where making tax data available to ICE actually ends up discouraging undocumented immigrants from filing taxes altogether. How might that impact not only government revenue, but local economies or the ability to track financial activity, how might this affect your stance on the matter? If you are against this type of agreement,

imagine that a lack of access to IRS records makes it harder for ICE to locate individuals that are subject to deportation, including those that have committed serious crimes. Would this affect your stance or does the right to privacy take priority for you? Regardless of where you stand on the matter, I want you to ask yourself why you feel the way you do. That is the trickiest part. We are so quick to always just say, I agree with this,

or I disagree with that, but when we're asked to back it up, that is where we stutter. So ask yourself why always. That is what I have for you today. I hope you have a fantastic next couple of days and I will talk to you again on Thursday.