UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (3/27/25): Everything We Know About the Houthi Group Chat, Supreme Court Says ATF Can Regulate Ghost Guns, HHS Announces Restructuring, and More.

Episode Date: March 27, 2025

Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: Everything We Know About the Houthi Group Chat (0:25) Trump Administration Invokes State Secrets Privilege to Avoid Providing Deportation Flight Info (14:44) Supreme Court Upholds ATF's Ghost Gun Regulation (17:26) Trump Signs Order Declassifying Crossfire Hurricane Investigation Files (23:44) Trump Signs Order Seeking to Require Proof of Citizenship and ID for Voting (25:48) Trump Pardons Hunter Biden's Former Business Partner (31:39) HHS Announces Department Reorganization and Employee Cuts (34:13) Quick Hitters: New 25% Tariffs on Cars and Parts, Pfizer Allegedly Delayed Vaccine Announcement in 2020, Family Planning Grants at Risk of Being Cut, US Soldiers Missing in Lithuania, FDA Approves UTI Medication, Mangione Violates "Special Treatment," COVID Funding Repurposed by HHS (37:00) Critical Thinking Segment (40:36) 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

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

Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, March 27th. Let's talk about some news just as a reminder before we get into today's episode, I have a new free newsletter going out tomorrow morning, so be sure to subscribe to my sub sec if you're not already. You can find the signup link in this episode description. Now, of course, we have to start today's episode talking about this Yemen group chat. This story had just come out on Monday,

which is why it was only included in quick hitters in Monday's episode. But now that we've learned a lot more, let's talk about what we know. So this all started when Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of the Atlantic, wrote an article titled, The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me

Its War Plans. Goldberg noted in that article that he had been added to this group chat earlier in the month, and that there was one specific text he was referring to that came from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Now following that the administration, including but not limited to the President, Defense Secretary Hegseth and the press secretary, said that no war plans were discussed. Hegseth called

Goldberg a quote deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who's made a profession of peddling hoaxes. Hegseth went on to say that Goldberg peddles in garbage and that, quote, nobody was texting war plans. After Goldberg's article came out, though, Brian Hughes, a spokesperson for the National Security Council, said, quote, this appears to be an authentic message chain,

and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain. The threat is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials. The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to troops or national security.'" So let's talk about what we know,

what we know about the group chat, what we know about the actual texts, what we know about the group chat, what we know about the actual text, what we know about the Signal app, what we know about the potential legal consequences, and what we know about the lawsuit that has now been filed against the administration in the wake of all of this. Starting with the group chat.

According to Goldberg, and the screenshots that we've seen from Goldberg, this group chat was given the name Huthy PC Small Group, PC References Principle Committee, which is the National Security Council's top officials. The chat was created by Mike Waltz, the new National Security Advisor,

and in the group chat were 18 individuals, including but not limited to, Vice President Vance, Defense Secretary Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, White House Chief of Staff Suzy Wiles,

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, and of course, the Editor-in-Chief of the Atlantic Jeffrey Goldberg. The chat was created on an app called Signal, which is an encrypted messaging app, and it was reportedly created to discuss these strikes on Houthi militants in Yemen who had been threatening and targeting international shipping in the Red Sea,

which we'll talk about more in a minute. But Signal is kind of like WhatsApp in the sense that they're both commercial messaging apps that offer similar features like text, voice notes, video chats, messaging apps that offer similar features like text, voice, notes, video chats, uh, and to end encryption, a disappearing messages feature and more, but signal is more focused on privacy. So signal doesn't collect metadata like WhatsApp does signal also collects minimal user data. It has, it has app specific locks, face blurring tools, cryptographic deniability, forward secrecy and immediate self-destruction options. In short, Signal is more secure and private than WhatsApp, but both serve the same main purpose, which is a

messaging tool. We've also learned that Goldberg was added to the chat by Mike Waltz, or at least by one of Waltz's staffers. So Waltz has taken responsibility for it. President Trump said in an interview with NBC News that Walt's had learned a lesson. He's a good man. And that it was one of Walt's staffers that added Goldberg's number. Walt himself though, said on an interview with Fox News this week that he takes full responsibility. He built the group that it's embarrassing and that they were going to get down to the bottom of it. Now, once Hegseth, the press secretary and others started saying no war plans were texted, that is when Goldberg decided he was going to release

the screenshots by publishing another article. This time the article was titled, here are the attack plans that Trump's advisors shared on Signal. So here's what we know from that. And I do have the screenshots linked for you time the article was titled, Here are the attack plans that Trump's advisors shared on Signal. So here's what we know from that. And I do have the screenshots linked for you in the sources of this episode per usual, but I'm just going to recap them here.

Actually, before I do that, let me give you a little bit more context as to why this chat is even discussing striking the Houthis. So the Suez Canal is a waterway in Egypt that connects the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea. It's a big shipping waterway between Europe and Asia. So when ships transport goods between these two continents, they have to pass through these Yemen waters in the Red Sea. Well, Houthis have been occasionally launching missiles at ships passing through this area,

and following the Israel-Hamas War, they increased the frequency of those attacks. So since 2023, the Department of Defense has been trying to fight back. And as we'll talk about later in the episode, Biden too launched strikes as well. So, and again, you'll hear about that in these text messages. So with that context, let's talk about the actual text. They'll make a lot more sense now. The first set of texts is really the group talking about the pros and cons of striking now versus striking later so vice president Vance says he thinks that they were making a mistake by shrank striking now and That although the strongest reason to issue strikes now is to send a message

There's a risk that the public wouldn't understand why strikes would be necessary since only 3% of US trade Runs through the Suez Canal Vance also said he's not sure the president is aware how inconsistent a strike would be with his message on Europe right now, given the fact that the strike would mostly be helping Europe. And Vance noted that there's a risk we would see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices.

Ultimately, Vance says he's willing to support the decision of the team but would like to delay it by a month so they can complete the messaging work on why this matters and also see where the economy is at in a few weeks. John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, then chimes in and says that from the CIA's perspective, a delay wouldn't negatively impact efforts and that additional time might actually benefit them. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth enters the conversation responding to Vance's texts,

writing that he understands Vance's position and that he supported Vance raising those concerns with the president to see how the president feels about it. And he noted that things like the economy, Ukraine peace, and Gaza are important things to consider and that messaging is going to be tough no matter what he said, quote, nobody knows who the Houthis are, which is why we need to stay focused on one Biden failed and to Iran funded, and quote, and just for a little clarification there, that second point speaks to the fact that Iran funds the Houthis.

However, Hegseth, he was in favor of striking now as opposed to Vance. So Hegseth said that waiting a few weeks or a month would pose risks, which include their plan being leaked and them appearing indecisive, and two, that Israel might decide to take action first, which would cause Israel's ceasefire deal with Gaza to fall apart, and the U.S. wouldn't get to start this on their own terms. Ultimately, like I said, Hegseth did not want to delay the plan. His priority was restoring freedom of navigation in the canal and reestablishing deterrence. Waltz then adds to the conversation saying that the European ships that are currently in the canal do not have the capabilities to defend against Huthis and that regardless

of timeframe, whether it happens now or in a few weeks, a month, whatever it is, it'll be the United States that has to be the one to reopen these shipping lanes. Vance then says at Pete Hegseth, if you think we should do it, let's go. I just hate bailing Europe out again. Let's just make sure our messaging is tight here. If there are things we can do upfront to minimize risk to Saudi oil facilities, then we should do it. The group then communicates a little bit more on making sure the president is on board and ultimately they get the green light. It's unclear how much time passed between that exchange that I just recapped and this next text, which Goldberg also published, that shows Hegseth sending actual military

plans. So the text shows that the time at the time of sending was 1144 AM Eastern time. And the text essentially lays out a timeline of when the strike is going to happen. So the text first starts by saying the weather is favorable and that it's confirmed that they're a go for mission launch. And that text was sent roughly two hours before the attack began and about 30 minutes

before the first fighter jets took off. The same text, like I said, it's kind of like this timeline, right? So further down in the text, it says said, it's kind of like this timeline, right? So further down in the text, it says that at 1415, military time, of course, is when the first bombs will definitely drop pending earlier trigger-based targets. He concludes that timeline text by writing, Godspeed to our warriors, which Vance responds, I will say a prayer for victory. At 1.48 PM, Waltz said, quote, "'VP building collapsed, had multiple positive ID.'

Vance replies, what? And Waltz then says, typing too fast. Their first target, their top missile guy, we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend's building and it's now collapsed. From there, the group issues various congratulations and good jobs." So those are the texts. So we've now talked about the group chat, the Signal app, the gist of the text messages.

Let's talk about some potential legal implications. First, let's talk about the Espionage Act because questions have been raised as to whether the group chat violates it. Keep in mind, the Espionage Act is a law Congress passed after we entered World War I, and it pertains to the conveying of information that is intended to interfere with a war effort. The Espionage Act is very broad, and because of that, it can pretty much be applied to almost any disclosure of information related to national defense to someone unauthorized to receive that information. So yes, what happened here? However, the broad nature of the law also means it's rarely used in prosecution, and especially in cases where the disclosure was unintentional, like this one. In cases where the

disclosure was unintentional, it's even more rarely prosecuted. Now, obviously, just because it's rare doesn't mean the argument couldn't be made. Sure, an argument can definitely be made that the negligence of adding a journalist to a group chat discussing sensitive information constitutes a violation of the act, but again, prosecution is unlikely, especially because it's the Trump DOJ that would have to bring charges. Some people have also been talking about the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime to disclose the identity of an undercover agent because Goldberg had said that the chats included the name of an undercover CIA officer. Two things worth mentioning here. One, CIA Director Ratcliffe said at the Senate included the name of an undercover CIA officer. Two things worth mentioning here.

One, CIA Director Ratcliffe said at the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing this week that the CIA officer mentioned by Goldberg is in fact not undercover. And two, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act only criminalizes the intentional disclosure of an undercover CIA agent, which is not what happened here. Now one other thing I want to note is that Democratic lawmakers have been saying that the president violated the Constitution by authorizing these strikes against the Whoopies without congressional approval. Interestingly, Republican lawmakers were accusing President Biden of the very same thing just last year. So the Constitution

grants only Congress the power to declare war. However So the Constitution grants only Congress the power to declare war. However, the Constitution also says that the president is the commander-in-chief. Because of that separation of power, how much the president can actually do militarily without an official declaration of war from Congress has long been debated. So in 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Act over President Nixon's veto, by the way, which allows a president to retaliate against an attack made on the United States but limits the presidential authority when it comes to deploying military forces without congressional

approval. The act requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deployment and to withdraw the troops after 60 days if Congress has not expressly approved the action. Importantly though, presidents haven't really complied with the law. Over the last 50 years, it hasn't been that effective because presidents consider the law to be unconstitutional. Because of this, presidents have issued airstrikes in the past without consulting Congress. Biden did it.

Trump's done it. Obama did it. Clinton did it. There's precedent there. Obama did it. Clinton did it. There's precedent there. With that said, the debate still exists. So whether airstrikes ordered by presidents are constitutional or unconstitutional is really a matter of opinion at this point, and presidents have long faced criticism for doing so. Finally, before we move on to the next story, let's talk about this lawsuit that was filed in the wake of all of this. American Oversight, which is a nonprofit watchdog, filed a lawsuit against Hegstead, Tulsi Gabbard,

John Ratcliffe, Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Pescent, and the National Archives and Records Administration, claiming that the use of the Signal Messaging app to conduct official government business is a violation of the Federal Records Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. So this is a 21st century problem if we've ever seen one. Basically, the lawsuit says that the

use of Signal's auto-deletion feature is akin to the unlawful destruction or removal of a public record. And because senior officials used this auto-deletion feature and did not keep a separate agency record of the chat, they violated the guidelines set by the Federal Records Act. So what American Oversight is asking for here is for the court to declare that signal messages are subject to the guidelines set by the Federal Records Act, that the failure to preserve these records constitutes unlawful removal of federal records, that the defendants have maintained an inadequate record-keeping system under the act, and that the defendants have violated their respective duties under the law. American

Oversight wants the court to issue a permanent injunction which would require the defendants to comply with their obligations under the Federal Records Act and stop communicating on signal or similar messaging platforms. As far as what we know about potential firings, the press secretary did not necessarily rule that out when she was asked about it, but the president has shown his support for Waltz amid everything that's gone on. The president told Fox News that Waltz would not be fired.

So that's what we know as of now, but I will be sure to update you as we find out more. Let's take our first break here and I will be right back. Okay, Martin, let's try one. Remember, big. You got it. The Ford It's a Big Deal event is on. How's that?

A little bigger. The Ford It's a Big Deal event. Nice. Now the offer? Lease a 2025 Escape Active all-wheel drive Welcome back. The Trump administration has invoked the state secrets privilege in its ongoing alien enemies act lawsuit. And the reason I'm talking about this is because in Monday's episode, or maybe that was last Thursday, we talked about the ongoing battle between the Trump administration and the judge that is overseeing the alien enemies act case and

the deportation flights to El Salvador. And in that last update, I had said that the administration might invoke what's called the state secrets privilege to avoid providing details about the deportation flights to El Salvador. So what I want to do here, first of all, I want to keep this brief. But what I want to do is I want to talk about what the state secrets privilege is, just so we kind of understand what's happening here. The state secrets privilege is a legal doctrine that allows the government to refuse disclosure of information in legal proceedings if there is a reasonable danger

that such disclosure would harm national security. So it prevents certain information from becoming public as part of a court case. We typically see this invoked in cases involving surveillance, counterterrorism, undercover operations, things of that nature. In fact, the government can actually intervene in a case that it is not a party to and exercise the privilege. Now, obviously, that's not the case here because the government is very much a party to this lawsuit. But in this instance, the administration claims that providing details about these deportation

flights would jeopardize critical government functions and intelligence sources. Attorney General Pam Bondi and other senior officials said that they chose to invoke the privilege because disclosure would pose that reasonable danger to national security and foreign affairs. Now, when it comes to whether a court will accept or reject the invocation of the state secret's privilege, federal justices or judges more often than not defer to the executive branch, but sometimes a court could reject the government's request. And then of course, if the judge rejects the government's request to invoke the privilege, the government can always

appeal that decision or that rejection. More recently, yesterday, and this is kind of like a separate storyline, but also related to the very same case, an appeals court did uphold the block on Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act, which like I said, is a separate issue from the state secret's privilege. But attorney general Bondi has said she would appeal that decision to the Supreme Court if need be to try to get a favorable ruling for the administration so that way the administration can resume deporting Trende Aragwa gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. So there are two issues before the court's summing from this one case.

One, can the administration use the Alien Enemies Act to deport gang members? And two, can the administration invoke the state secret's privilege to avoid providing details about deportation flights? In other legal news, the Supreme Court upheld a Biden administration ATF regulation on ghost gun kits. So let's talk about this. First of all, what is a ghost gun? That's the most important detail in this conversation. A ghost gun is a gun that is assembled at home typically because basically you order various firearm parts or kits in the mail and then you assemble it yourself. So you get these parts in the mail, you assemble the gun,

the final product is a ghost gun. It's called a ghost gun because when assembled, it does not have a serial number and therefore is untraceable. Until recently, the ATF did not consider a frame or receiver that was less than 80% assembled or complete to be a firearm under the law, nor did the ATF consider a weapons parts kit to be a firearm. But this changed in 2022 when the ATF updated its rules, and that is why we're here.

So in 2022, the ATF issued this rule that said even partially complete or disassembled frames or receivers and weapons parts kits are firearms under the Gun Control Act and therefore they must comply with federal regulations. In other words, ghost gun manufacturers now have to perform background checks on customers, obtain licenses, and include trackable serial numbers on their kits, all things that traditional firearm manufacturers have to do or firearm sellers. The rule change was meant to treat ghost guns the same as regular firearms. But the plaintiff said, no, no, no, no, no. This new rule violates the Gun Control Act because the Gun Control Act's definition of a weapon does not apply to ghost guns.

Weapons covered by the law are defined as those that are designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of explosive, including the frame or receiver of a weapon. The plaintiffs argued that a weapons parts kits cannot be considered a weapon under the law because it doesn't meet that definition and therefore the ATF exceeded its authority in issuing this regulation and the regulation should be struck down. So the question for the justices here was, are ghost guns weapons as defined in the law?

In other words, do these unassembled weapons parts kits fall under the definition of a firearm? If so, the regulation can stand. If not, the ATF exceeded its authority in issuing the regulation. So note that this case was not about the Second Amendment. This case was about the Gun Control Act and what is permitted under that law. Ultimately, as we know, the Supreme Court upheld the regulation. It was a 7-2 decision with justices Alito and Thomas dissenting. Now when I originally reported on this case back in October, I said it seemed, based on

oral arguments and the justices' concerns, reactions, all those things, as if the justices would uphold the regulation. So this really isn't too much of a surprise, but I do want to talk about the rationale anyway. Justice Gorsuch, in writing the opinion for the court, said the court had no trouble rejecting the arguments made by the industry manufacturers. Gorsuch emphasized that technological advancements of firearms should be accounted for in the language of prior law. And he referenced profound changes in how guns are made and sold as a result of these technological advancements, which have changed the way that

Americans consider gun control. Gorsuch noted that the definition of the 1968 Gun Control Act has long been understood to reach everything from run-of-the-mill rifles to novelty umbrella guns, and given the breadth of weapons included in the interpretation of the act, Gorsuch wrote that these types of kits are within the scope of the law to include. Interestingly, the opinion included images. This is not something we see a lot, but it included a picture of this buy-build-shoot kit which includes all the necessary parts for a customer to create a Glock variant semi-automatic pistol. Alongside that image, Gorsuch wrote, quote, an individual who had never before encountered the kit

was able to produce a gun from it in 21 minutes using only common tools and instructions found in publicly available YouTube videos, end quote. Notably though, Gorsuch also suggested that the completeness of the kit is what distinguishes it as a weapon included under the act. He wrote, quote, a friend might speak of the table is what distinguishes it as a weapon, included under the Act. He wrote, quote,

A friend might speak of the table he just bought at IKEA, even though hours of assembly remain ahead of him. In much the same way, an ordinary speaker might well call Polymer80's product a firearm frame even though a little work is required to complete it. End quote. Let's finish by talking a little bit about the dissent. We'll keep this short and sweet. As I said, Justices Thomas and Alito dissented from the majority because they believed the

court's interpretation of the Gun Control Act was too broad. According to Thomas, who wrote the dissenting opinion, the act in question does not cover the unfinished frames and receivers that are contained in these weapons parts kits. And the majority decision in favor of extending the law to include ghost guns, Justice Thomas says, blesses the government's overreach. Thomas considered the majority's decision rewriting statutory texts and pointed to the inconsistency with a prior decision issued by the court last June. So last June, the court ruled that the ATF could not include bump stocks, which is basically a bump stock allows semi-automatic rifles to imitate the

capacity of an automatic weapon when the Biden administration sought to regulate them. So the court struck down that regulation and that decision was based on limited evidence that such a device could be included in the original language of the law. Similarly, Justice Thomas writes that the ghost gun case analyzed the language of a prior law and that the court did so, you know, so broadly, interpreted the language of the law so broadly to include ghost guns when prior readings of the law had been more narrow. So he just felt that essentially the court's interpretation of the Gun Control Act and the definition of firearm was too broad. Now that we're getting into April, May, and June, we should start to see some more interesting

decisions come out of the Supreme Court, and those are always my favorite to report on, so stay tuned for more court rulings as we get closer to summer. Now onto a few recent presidential actions, starting with this new executive order from President Trump, which declassifies documents related to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. First, what is the Crossfire Hurricane investigation? Crossfire Hurricane was an investigation by the FBI

into whether Russia interfered with the 2016 election in coordination with President Trump. It was opened in July 2016 after Trump's then policy advisor for his campaign, quote, suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information

during the campaign that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton. That quote, by the way, comes from the 2019 report by the Office of the Inspector General following the investigation. In August of 2016, the FBI opened four individual cases into four people who were involved in Trump's presidential campaign, and these investigations have been heavily criticized

by Trump and other politicians as politically motivated and in abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which regulates the collection of foreign intelligence. Specifically, Trump's former foreign policy advisor for his campaign, Carter Page, was being surveilled via FISA warrants. So Trump signed this executive order this week, which directs the attorney general to declassify materials related to the crossfire hurricane investigation. But here's the thing, the order specifically declassifies materials in a binder that were already declassified on the last day of Trump's first term, but were never released to the public.

That original order, which was signed January 19th, 2021, required that the binder be declassified except for information that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has ordered to stay protected, as well as any personally identifiable information. This week's order also says that the information previously redacted should remain classified. So when that information is made public, the material should

include information on FISA warrants, the Steele dossier, internal FBI and DOJ communications, as well as some Russian intelligence, though it's likely that the most sensitive data or the most sensitive information will be redacted. Another executive order from this week, this one titled preserving and protecting the integrity of American elections, which is meant to enforce an ID requirement when voting in federal elections

and proof of citizenship when registering. So I wanna talk about what this order says, but also talk about some hurdles that it faces as far as lawsuits and constitutional power. So here's what the order says, quote, despite pioneering self-government, the United States now fails to enforce basic and necessary election protections employed by modern developed nations, as well as those still developing. India and Brazil, for example, are tying voter identification to a biometric database, while the United States largely relies on self-attestation for citizenship.

Further, while countries like Denmark and Sweden sensibly limit mail-in voting to those unable to vote in person and not count late-arriving votes regardless of the date of postmark, many American elections now feature mass voting by mail, with many officials accepting ballots without postmarks or those received well after election day. The order continues and says, Free, fair, and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion are fundamental to maintaining our constitutional republic. The right of American citizens to have their votes properly counted and tabulated without illegal dilution is vital to determining

the rightful winner of an election." The order then goes on to note multiple different federal laws that relate to elections like the National Voter Registration Act, the Help America Vote Act, and others, and says that it is the policy of this administration to enforce these federal laws and protect the integrity of our election process. So in carrying out that policy, he issues various directives, right? That's what executive orders are for. First, the Election Assistance Commission has to take action within 30 days to require

documentary proof of citizenship in its National Male Voter Registration form. This proof of citizenship can include a copy of a U. a US passport, a real ID, an official military ID, or any other valid federal or state government issued photo ID, as long as that ID indicates citizenship or if that ID is otherwise accompanied by proof of citizenship. Second, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State have to work with states to ensure that the states have access to systems where they can verify the citizenship or immigration status of people registering to vote or who are already registered. Third, the Attorney General is to take action to enter into information sharing agreements with the chief station

election official. Those agreements are meant to provide the DOJ with detailed information on all suspected violations of state and federal election laws discovered by state officials. And the order also prohibits federal funds to states that don't comply with federal laws. It prohibits foreign nationals from contributing or donating in US elections. It prohibits states from counting mail-in ballots received after election day. The order says this is like allowing a person who arrives three days after election day, perhaps after a winner has been declared, to vote in person at a former voting precinct. Now I do want to touch on something because I could see this kind of becoming a rumor. So in the order the president says that multiple

states fail to comply with federal law and court precedent by counting ballots after Election Day. And the order cites to a ruling out of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that states can only count mail-in ballots that are received by election day. This is true, the Fifth Circuit did rule that way. And so have other courts. But the Supreme Court has not, the Supreme Court has not ruled

on what the elections clause of the Constitution means for counting ballots received after election day. So these court rulings that are cited to in the order only apply to a handful of jurisdictions, not the whole country. And therefore, when the order says many states are violating laws, it's not necessarily that because the Supreme Court has not weighed in on this issue and therefore, not all 50 states are obligated to follow that rule. That brings me to the final component of the story, which is the constitutionality of the order. So I mentioned the elections clause of the Constitution, which says the times, places and manner of holding elections is actually set by the states.

But Congress can at any time make a law or alter a state regulation as to the times and manner of elections, just not the places of elections. What this means is that the details of voting and the ballot counting procedures have typically been left to the states, though yes, a few courts have weighed in on ballot counting and when ballots must be counted by. So this creates an interesting question when it comes to ballot counting specifically. Is it up to the states or can Congress create a law that says all ballots must be counted by election day?

Perhaps the Supreme Court answers that question for us someday, you know, then we'll have a more final answer but as of right now, it's still a question. The other thing to consider is the constitutionality of an executive order such as this one that requires proof of citizenship to register to vote. Note that the elections clause does not govern voter qualifications. So the question becomes, can a president require proof of citizenship via executive order?

The ACLU has already said it will be filing a lawsuit against the administration, as did the Arizona Secretary of State and Attorney General. Interestingly in 2021, President Biden issued an executive order that directed federal agencies to promote voting access for all Americans. But at the time, Republicans argued the order was unconstitutional because the executive branch was encroaching on the responsibilities of the states. Now Democrats are accusing Trump of the very same thing. The ACLU, for example, said in its statement that President Trump's order is a, quote,

blatant overreach, end quote. So we will definitely see a challenge to this order, and I will update you accordingly. Let's take our second and final break here, and I will be right back. The last presidential action we will cover in this episode is the grant of clemency to Devin Archer, who is Hunter Biden's former business partner. Now, it might seem odd hearing that President Trump pardoned Hunter Biden's former business partner, so let's walk through what's going on here. In 2018, Archer was convicted of fraud in a scheme that involved selling and issuing

more than $60 million in tribal bonds. Ultimately, he was sentenced to a year and a day in prison in 2022, and he was ordered to forfeit $15.7 million and pay $43.4 million in restitution. Fast forward to 2023. Archer testifies before Congress about Hunter Biden's foreign business dealings. At the time, the GOP was trying to make the case for impeachment proceedings against President Biden, and Archer agreed to testify about what he knew. Notably, though, his testimony didn't really provide anything of value. Archer testified about Hunter capitalizing on his dad's name, for example, by putting then Vice President Biden on speakerphone

to impress his clients and business associates. However, Archer didn't testify about any actions that would put then Vice President Biden at any level of wrongdoing. When Archer was asked directly, are you aware of any wrongdoing by then Vice President Biden? Archer responded, no, I'm not aware of any. So Archer's congressional testimony, though it didn't help the GOP, it helped his case in the Trump administration's eyes. And we kind of had an idea that the pardon was coming because on Sunday the New York Post reported it, quoting Trump saying Archer was, quote, screwed by the Bidens.

End quote. Also, Archer himself had told Fox News about a conversation he had over the weekend with President Trump about a pardon. So come Wednesday, as President Trump was handed the pardon to sign, White House Staff Secretary Will Sharpe explained that Archer was prosecuted related to a fraud investigation and said, quote, But notably, the tone and tenor of that prosecution changed dramatically after he began to cooperate with congressional investigators and serve as a witness against Hunter Biden and the Biden family We believe that was an injustice and therefore we're asking you to pardon him And quote Trump then responded a lot of people have asked me to do this

I think he was treated very unfairly and I looked at the records studied the rector Studied the records and he was a victim of a crime as far as I'm concerned, so we're going to undo that. Again, a pardon essentially wipes away a conviction and restores all civil rights that might have been lost as a result of that conviction. Moving on, some news from today, HHS Secretary Kennedy announced some reorganization plans within the department to address what he calls inefficiency and ineffectiveness. In making this announcement, he said that upon arriving at the HHS, he learned that over half of HHS employees don't go into an office, that the HHS has more than 100 communication offices, more than 40 IT departments, dozens of procurement

offices, and nine HR departments. And he says these offices and departments oftentimes don't even speak with one another. In line with that, he said this reorganization effort is meant to centralize department communications, procurement, HR, information technology, and policy planning to boost department morale and create a unified, clear sense of mission within the department. Kennedy also noted that sometimes these sub-agencies work at cross-purpose with each other, and that some are so territorial that they hoard patient medical data and sell it for profit to each other, meaning within the department. As part of the reorganization, Kennedy said a whole alphabet soup of departments and agencies will be eliminated

while preserving their core functions by merging them into a new subdivision called the Administration for Healthy America. AHA will combine offices that address addiction, toxic substances, and others into one central office that will focus on chronic disease prevention programs and health resources for low-income Americans. Kennedy said there are two main goals here, one to save taxpayer dollars by making the department more efficient and saving nearly $2 billion each year, and two, radically improving the quality of service of the HHS.

He noted that key services like Medicare, Medicaid, the FDA, CDC, and other agencies will enter a new era of responsiveness and a new era of effectiveness, and 28 divisions will soon become 15 through consolidation. He also touched on the downsizing aspect of the reorganization, saying, quote, the entire federal workforce is downsizing now, so this will be a painful period for HHS as we downsize from 82,000 full-time employees to around 62,000, but we're keenly focused on paring away excess administrators while increasing the number of scientists and frontline health providers so we can do a better job for the American people."

End quote. By the way, that 20,000 employee decrease consists of about 10,000 full-time employees that have left the department voluntarily since Trump took office and another 10,000 full-time employees that have left the department voluntarily since Trump took office, and another 10,000 that'll be cut as part of this reorganization plan. So that's what you need to know there. I do have Kennedy's full announcement linked for you in the sources section of this episode, of course, which you can find by clicking the sources link in the episode description. Now time for some quick hitters.

President Trump announced a new 25% tariff on passenger cars and light trucks, which applies to both finished cars that are shipped into the US, as well as imported parts like engines, transmissions, powertrain parts, and electrical components that are assembled at American auto plants. Importers under the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement will be able to certify their US contents, so that the 25% tariff will only apply to the value of their non-US content, and parts that are USMCA compliant will be exempt until the Commerce Secretary can put a system in place to only apply tariffs to non-US content.

The tariff on foreign-made cars will take effect on April 3rd. The tariff on car parts will take effect no later than May 3rd. According to a new exclusive report from the Wall Street Journal, prosecutors are investigating allegations that Pfizer intentionally delayed announcing the success of its COVID vaccine until after the 2020 election. This information reportedly comes from a former Pfizer employee who now works as the global head of vaccine research and development for GSK and who told his new GSK colleagues about the delay. Prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York have interviewed at least two people. A third might be interviewed soon, though officials have not interviewed anyone from

Pfizer yet. The Trump administration is reportedly planning to put on hold the distribution of roughly 120 million dollars in grants while it ensures the funds are being used in line with President Trump's order on DEI programs. Included in this hold is roughly 27 million that would be allotted to Planned Parenthood and its affiliates under Title X meant to subsidize pregnancy testing, increase access to birth control, fund infertility services, and provide treatment for STDs. Notably, HHS officials said no final decisions have been made.

They did not clarify a timeline for the decision, but did say it could come this week. Yesterday, US officials confirmed that four US soldiers conducting a training exercise in Lithuania have gone missing. NATO Secretary Mark Root told reporters Wednesday that the soldiers had died, however a NATO spokesperson later clarified that the search is still ongoing. The US soldiers were in an armored vehicle during the training exercise, which has been found submerged in a body of water. The FDA has approved a new antibiotic to treat UTIs for the first time in nearly 30 years. The medication will be sold as a pill under the brand name Blue Jepa

and is expected to be available later this year. Luigi Mangione, the suspected shooter of the UnitedHealthcare CEO, has apparently violated his special treatment by keeping handwritten notes in his socks. Mangione was given special accommodations for his quote unquote fashion needs when he was allowed to change out of his jail issued clothes

ahead of his jail issued clothes ahead of his hearing last month. The defense team gave a court officer a bag of clothes for Mangione to wear, which included a new pair of socks wrapped around cardboard. Hidden in that cardboard were two personal heart-shaped notes, one addressed to an unknown person named Joan and another letter, which was a support letter for Luigi. Importantly, he ended up going sockless to that hearing because he didn't like how the socks looked when he put them on. The HHS announced that billions of dollars allocated for COVID response efforts

will now be spent on President Trump's directive to address the country's chronic disease epidemic. The HHS Director of Communications said the department would no longer waste billions of taxpayer dollars responding to a non-existent pandemic that Americans moved on from years ago. These funds are being sent to state health departments, various organizations, and international groups. Okay, obviously for today's critical thinking segment, we have to talk about that Yemen group chat.

As a reminder, the critical thinking segment is not meant to be too difficult. The questions are not meant to stump you. It's just an exercise for our brain so we don't forget how to think for ourselves. First, check in with your initial thoughts on the situation. Do you see this as a serious national security issue or do you think it's being overblown and why? That why is the most important part.

We have to remind ourselves how to think and kind of like check in with ourselves and figure out why we feel the way that we do. But regardless of where you stand, I want you to consider this. The year is 2024. President Biden directs a strike against the Houthis, which he did, okay?

That part is true. This is where the hypothetical comes in. It comes out that the Biden administration, or I should say Biden administration officials, had, like Trump administration officials, texted their plans on Signal, and included on that thread was Rachel Maddow from MSNBC. What are your thoughts here?

Is it just as bad? Is it worse? Is it not as bad? And why? Usually there are no wrong answers, but if your answer is either A, it's worse because it's the Biden administration, or B, A, it's worse because it's the Biden administration, or B, it's not as bad because it's the Biden administration,

you have to come up with a new answer. You can't hold the two administrations to different standards. And the third part of this exercise is, would you feel differently about this situation if this was done via email? So if administration officials emailed their plans, but somehow had a rogue email address in there,

would that change your stance at all and why? So to recap, reflect on your personal thoughts on the situation and why you feel the way that you do, whether you're capable of holding Republicans and Democrats to the same standard, and whether you would view this situation the same or differently if it was done via email rather than text. That is what I have for you today. Don't forget a new newsletter goes out tomorrow morning, so be sure to subscribe if you're not subscribed already. The link is in this episode description. Have a fantastic weekend and I will talk to you on Monday.