UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (3/3/25): Trump, Vance, and Zelenskyy Fight It Out, 'Phase 1' of Epstein File Release, Measles Outbreak and Kennedy's Response, Halt on Russian Cyber Operations, and More.

Episode Date: March 3, 2025

Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: One Court Upholds Mass Firings; Another Says No. Here's What Happens Now (0:10) AG Bondi Releases 'Phase 1' of Epstein Files to Conservative Influencers (3:25) President Trump Declares English the Official Language of U.S. (9:14) ACLU Files New Lawsuit Preventing Transfer of Migrants to Guantanamo (11:19) President Trump, VP Vance, and President Zelenskyy Fight It Out in Oval Office (13:21) MANA Nutrition Sees USAID Contract Restored; What You Should Know About DOGE.gov (26:18) Measles Outbreak in Texas; Here's How the New HHS Secretary Is Responding (32:11) New Reports Say Hegseth Has Ordered a Stop on Russian Cyber Operations (37:17) Quick Hitters: Ed. Dept. Offers Employees $25k Buyout, Judge Puts Pause on Trump's Transgender Women in Sports Order, GSA Releases Tech Team Amid Federal Cuts (38:45) Critical Thinking Segment (41:16) Listen/Watch this episode AD-FREE on Patreon. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Monday, March 3rd. Let's talk about some news. Per usual, on Mondays we start with some news from Thursday and then we kind of just work our way forward. So let's talk about this court ruling pausing mass firings within the government. Obviously we know the Trump administration has been issuing these mass layoffs within the government. Following those initial layoffs, multiple lawsuits were brought by those that lost their jobs as well as labor unions that either were or may be affected down the line. So in this particular case, a coalition of labor unions and nonprofits filed suit against the administration, arguing that the Office of Personnel Management

exceeded its legal authority when it went ahead and directed these various agencies to fire thousands of probationary employees en masse. Specifically, they argue that this action violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and that only Congress holds the power to control federal employment and related expenditures. Now, I said previously that multiple

lawsuits have been filed, and the reason that's important is because these rulings have been different in different jurisdictions. And we'll talk about what that means, but just to illustrate, a federal judge in DC said recently that the administration could continue with mass firings because the plaintiffs lacked the legal right to bring the lawsuit. But in this case, which is out of San Francisco, the judge said the government had to temporarily stop the mass firings because they were likely unlawful. So what happens now when we have these conflicting rulings? Well, the ruling out of San Francisco applies to the parties that brought that lawsuit, and the ruling out of DC applies to the parties that brought that lawsuit in DC.

The San Francisco ruling applies to federal employees that belong to certain branches of the American Federation of Government Employees Union and to other unions, whereas the DC ruling applies to employees that belong to the National Treasury Employees Union and for other unions. So each ruling applies to the parties that Employees Union and four other unions. So each ruling applies to the parties that brought that particular lawsuit. There's also a related storyline here, which is that some employees that lost their jobs

are taking a different approach to getting their job back. Rather than filing a lawsuit in the courts, they're filing complaints with the Merit Systems Protection Board, which is this independent federal agency that hears complaints against the government. And last week, the MSPB issued a 45-day pause on terminations, but also said that six of the fired federal employees must be rehired at least through April 10th. And while six employees is obviously a very, very small number in the grand scheme of things,

my point here is just to illustrate the different methods of checks and balances, if you will, within the government. In ruling that these six individuals had to be rehired, the US special counsel, who's also going through his own termination battle, found that while the probationary employees that were fired lack some job protections due to the probationary employees that were fired lack some job protections due to their probationary status, they can't be fired at will. According to the investigation

into the termination of those six employees, none of the six employees that were fired had performance issues. So that's what's going on with the firings at this point in time. That's what's going on with the firings at this point in time. Some more Thursday news. Attorney General Pam Bondi, in coordination with the FBI, publicly released files related to Jeffrey Epstein. But the way that those files were released has sparked some controversy. And that's what everyone seems to be talking about. So let's discuss what happened, but also some background.

As many of us know, Jeffrey Epstein exploited more than 250 underage girls in the early 2000s at multiple personal properties in New Jersey, Florida, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Manhattan, and others. Back in 2008, Epstein signed a controversial non-prosecution agreement with Florida law enforcement in which he would plead guilty to two state charges, one count of soliciting prostitution and one count of soliciting prostitution from a minor. He was sentenced to 18 months in the Palm Beach County Jail. He only served 13 of those. And while serving, he was allowed to leave nearly every day

for the full work day to work from his office in Palm Beach. But in exchange for this guilty plea, he was allowed to leave nearly every day for the full work day to work from his office in Palm Beach. But in exchange for this guilty plea, the federal sex crimes investigation that he was facing came to an end. That non-prosecution agreement was brokered by a US attorney named Alex Acosta, and we'll touch on him more in a minute.

So Epstein gets out of jail in 2009. For the next 10 years, multiple women who say they're victims of Epstein engage in various legal battles to get Epstein's federal non-prosecution agreement voided. In 2018, the Miami Herald revisits the handling of Epstein's case and this triggers Epstein to be arrested on federal sex trafficking charges in 2019 Epstein to be arrested on federal sex trafficking charges in 2019 by New York authorities who determined that they were not bound by the earlier federal non-prosecution agreement.

At the time of Epstein's arrest though, Alex Acosta, the U.S. attorney that brokered that controversial non-prosecution agreement, was actually serving as Trump's labor secretary. This was during Trump's first administration. So Acosta ends up resigning as labor secretary because of the public criticism he received over his role in the initial investigation. One month after Epstein's arrest, he is found dead in his jail cell. Investigators conclude that he died by suicide, but there are many other theories surrounding his death.

Most notably that one of Epstein's high profile associates who did not want their name exposed hired someone to kill him in his cell. All this to say that for years the public has been waiting to see Epstein's associates list, the list of people that also engaged in sex acts with minors at Epstein's various properties. So in 2023, four years after Epstein is found dead, a New York judge ordered the unsealing of thousands of documents that would supposedly reveal the names of dozens of Epstein's associates. The documents get released on a rolling basis, but in the end we didn't really learn much more than what we

already knew. And most recently, on Thursday, the attorney general released more files related to Jeffrey Epstein to a small group of conservative influencers. The influencers were seen leaving the White House with binders labeled the Epstein files, phase one. After finding out what was in those binders, it turns out we still haven't learned much.

The documents in the binders contained copies of out we still haven't learned much. The documents in the binders contained copies of flight logs from Epstein's private plane, copies which have been made available in the past in court cases. We also got a heavily redacted copy of a black book which we've also seen before and that contains a list of Epstein's contacts and then also a completely redacted list of masseuses. What is new is an evidence list showing entries for more than 150 different items spanning from nude pictures to massage tables to sex toys and more.

It's basically a three-page catalog of material obtained through searches of Epstein's properties in New York and the US Virgin Islands. One piece of evidence is a CD labeled Girls Picks Nude Book Four, numerous photo albums and pictures, a folder titled LSG Log Book, which refers to Little St. John, Epstein's private island. And then also, this was interesting,

investigators found a bag containing one yellow envelope marked SK, dated 82708, which had smaller envelopes within it containing about $17,000. The date on that envelope coincides with the time Epstein was in jail in Palm Beach, and investigators are thinking SK could be a reference to a former Epstein associate.

So that is what we got in phase one of the release according to bondi the DOJ received roughly 200 pages of documents from the FBI But she also says that thousands of pages were not disclosed She requested that the FBI deliver the remaining documents to the DOJ by end of day Friday tasked the FBI director with investigating why not all missing documents were provided to her in her initial request. Allegedly a whistleblower from the Southern District of New York contacted Bondi and told her

that the Southern District of New York was hiding potentially thousands of Epstein files. So Bondi is now demanding all Epstein evidence from the Southern District of New York and ordering an investigation into the person who allegedly withheld these documents. Nonetheless, the administration faced criticism after the rollout of phase one with some calling it a publicity stunt.

One Republican lawmaker called the release a complete disappointment. So we will see if more gets released in time. That is what the administration is saying, that this was just phase one, more phases will come. But that is what we have as of now. Moving on to some Friday news, President Trump sent an executive order making English the official language of the United States, marking the first time in American history that the

country has designated an official language. As always, an executive order has a stated purpose and or policy, and then in this case, the order revokes a previously issued executive order consistent with that purpose and or policy. So we've talked about how executive orders almost always have a purpose and or policy and then directives for the federal government to carry out that purpose and or policy and then directives for the federal government

to carry out that purpose and or policy. But in some cases like this one, instead of a directive, the actual action is a revocation of a previously issued executive order because presidents can issue executive orders, they can also revoke other presidents executive orders. So here, obviously the purpose is to make English the official language of the United States. The order says that a nationally designated

language is at the core of a unified and cohesive society, and the United States is strengthened by a citizenry that can freely exchange ideas in one shared language. It says establishing English as the official language will not only streamline communication, but also reinforce shared national values and create a more cohesive and efficient society. And then consistent with that purpose, the executive order revokes a previous executive order issued in 2000 by President Clinton called Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency. However, the new order also confirms that 1. No changes will be mandated to the services provided by government agencies. 2. Agency heads have the authority to

make decisions necessary to fulfill their missions and provide efficient government services. 3. Agencies are not required to change, remove, or discontinue documents, products, or services in languages other than English, and four, that the Attorney General must rescind any policy guidance issued under that 2000 Executive Order and provide updated guidance that complies with the new order. A new lawsuit has been filed against the Trump administration attempting to prevent the transfer of more migrants to Guantanamo. As we talked about, I think maybe last month, there was a similar lawsuit that was filed,

but that lawsuit argued that migrants couldn't be moved to Guantanamo because of their lack of access to attorneys and family while there. This new lawsuit argues that the actual act of sending the migrants to Guantanamo is unconstitutional and unlawful. And there are essentially three claims in this new lawsuit. Number one, the transfers to Guantanamo violate the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Two, the transfer rule set forth by the administration violates the Administrative Procedure Act. And three, transferring the migrants violates the Fifth Amendment Procedure Act, and three, transferring the migrants violates the Fifth Amendment, which affords defendants due process. So for that first claim, the argument that transferring migrants to Cuba, which is where Guantanamo is, is essentially that Cuba is not a proper removal destination under the Immigration and Nationality Act framework. The second claim, which alleges a violation

of the Administrative Procedure Act, basically says that the administration has failed to put forth reasoned explanations for the decision to transfer migrants to Guantanamo, and in making its decision to do so, the administration considered factors that Congress did not intend to be considered. And then for the Fifth Amendment claim,

the plaintiffs argued that immigration detention is subject to be considered. And then for the fifth amendment claim, the plaintiffs argued that immigration detention is subject to due process. So we'll have to see what happens there. The plaintiffs have requested an emergency stay, which would prevent the administration from sending these 10 migrants to Guantanamo while the litigation plays out. And by the way, to put that number into perspective, that 10 number, the Trump administration has sent a little more than 200 migrants to Guantanamo since inauguration day. Let's take our first break here to hear from the show's amazing sponsors, and I will be right back to talk about President Trump's meeting with President Zelensky, some Doge updates, and more. Welcome back. For this next

story, we're going to talk about what went on between President Zelensky, President Trump, and Vice President Vance in the Oval Office on Friday. I want to give you a quick disclaimer here because I typically do not talk about foreign affairs. That is an intentional decision. There are many reasons for that. The number one reason being that I am only one person. I don't want to feel like I have to cover what's going on across the globe.

It is more than enough to talk about domestic issues. So I've just drawn a pretty bright line rule in not touching on any foreign affairs since the start of the year. However, this story is one that I feel is domestic enough, right? It took place in the Oval Office. It directly involved the president and vice president

of the United States. So I am making an exception here to talk about a foreign issue, but I just wanted to make that disclaimer because by no means am I going to now start talking about various foreign affairs. I already have a full plate and that is just not what I need. So let's start with the reason for the visit. President Zelensky met with President Trump on Friday to sign a bilateral agreement, which was finalized two days prior, and it would have given the United States access to rare

mineral deposits in Ukraine through joint investment. In other words, Ukraine would contribute 50% of its proceeds from future state-owned mineral resources, oil, and gas to a fund. That fund would then invest that money to promote the safety, security and prosperity of Ukraine. The United States government would own the maximum amount of the fund under US law and subject to US law would maintain a long-term financial commitment to the development of a stable and economically prosperous Ukraine. So this minerals deal was proposed last

year by Zelensky in an effort to incentivize the United States to continue to support Ukraine in its war with Russia. As for the United States, the United States likely would not benefit from this deal for at least a decade, probably closer to two decades, and that's just because mining is a long-term process. First you have to identify reserves and then from there it takes about 18 years to develop a mine plus about 500 million to a billion dollars to build a mine and the accompanying separation plan. Once all that is done, that is when the United States would start to see the mineral benefits. Now, President Trump had initially requested

500 billion dollars in mineral wealth under the terms of the deal. His rationale was that the United States has given Ukraine between $300 and $350 billion in aid and that the United States needs to get that money back plus some. However, Ukraine rejected that request with one Ukraine economist saying the deal term would bankrupt the country. The United States has since dropped the demand. Notably, the deal did not include a security guarantee from the United States, which is something that Zelensky had pushed for and continues to push for. On whether he would walk away from the agreement without

a security guarantee from the United States, Zelensky said he would not sign the deal until Trump decides how to tie the agreement to a US security guarantee, saying, quote, if we don't get security guarantees, we won't have a ceasefire. Nothing will work. Nothing. End quote. As for Trump, though, he said the United States would not be providing security guarantees beyond very much. That was his quote. While the published agreement says that the United States supports Ukraine's efforts to obtain security guarantees. Trump has said that the security responsibility is on Europe and claimed that the presence of US workers in Ukraine would provide automatic security.

So going into this Friday meeting, there were already disagreements on the table, most notably over that security guarantee. But what sparked the argument in the Oval Office was a question from a reporter about Poland's history under Russian control. The reporter said that as a child, he viewed the United States as the most powerful country known for its great entertainment culture and being a force for good. But he said that his friends worry that Trump aligns too closely with Putin and he wants to know Trump's message for them. Trump responded to this saying that he is not aligned with Russia or Ukraine, but with

the United States and for the good of the world. He said that staying neutral as a mediator is crucial for making deals and that picking sides or speaking poorly of the other would not help. Vice President Vance then chimed into the conversation and said that the key to peace is diplomacy. He said that the previous administrations talked tough on Putin, yet Putin still invaded Ukraine and destroyed a large part of the country. Vance said that the United States has wrongly prioritized words over actions and praised Trump for engaging in quote unquote true diplomacy, which Vance believes is what defines America's greatness and is what will help achieve a desired outcome. So Zelensky then says, and don't worry

I'm like teeing up for this argument which I'll play for you in a second, but this triggers Zelensky to say, well let me ask you this then to Vice President Vance, and this is what started the argument. Zelensky essentially said that since 2014, Ukraine has faced ongoing conflict and since then the United States has seen a lot of presidents, Obama, Trump, the argument. Zalensky essentially said that since 2014, Ukraine has faced ongoing conflict. And since then, the United States has seen a lot of presidents, Obama, Trump, Biden, now Trump again. But he said during 2014, no one stopped Putin's occupation of Ukraine. And through 2022, no one stopped Putin, implying that no president has done anything to stop

Putin. Consequently, he said in 2019, he signed a ceasefire and prisoner exchange agreement with Putin directly, which Putin broke in 2023 and never exchanged any prisoners in accordance with that prisoner exchange agreement. So Zelensky asks Vance at the end of these remarks, he asks Vance, what kind of diplomacy JD are you talking about? What do you mean? JD responded, the kind of diplomacy that's going to end the destruction in your country. And that's when Zelensky tried to say something, but JD cut him off and the argument started

to heat up. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to play a five minute clip for you. I think rather than recapping the conversation and going back and forth who said what, it's just best that you hear it for yourself. If you've already heard it, feel free to skip past the next five minutes or so but here it is I'm going to start at President Zelensky asking Vice President Vance what he means by diplomacy. What kind of diplomacy JD you are speaking about what what what what do you mean?

I'm talking about the kind of diplomacy that's going to end the destruction of your country. But if you're Mr. President Mr. President respect, I think it's disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American media. Right now you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the President for trying to bring it into this conflict. Have you ever been to Ukraine that you say what problems we have? I have been to...

And come once. I have actually watched and seen the stories and I know what happens is you bring people you bring them on a propaganda tour Mr. President. Do you disagree that you've had problems bringing people into your military? And do you think that it's respectful to come to the Oval Office of the United States of America and attack the administration that is trying to trying to prevent the destruction of your country. A lot of questions. Let's start from the beginning.

Sure. First of all, during the war, everybody has problems. Even you, but you have nice ocean and don't feel now, but you will feel it in the future. You don't know that. God bless you. God bless you. God bless you. You don't know that. You will not have a war. Don't tell us what we're going to feel. We're trying to solve know that. Don't tell us what we're gonna feel.

We're trying to solve a problem. Don't tell us what we're gonna feel. I'm not telling you. Because you're in no position to dictate that. Remember that. You're in no position to dictate what we're gonna feel. We're gonna feel very good. We're gonna feel very good and very strong. You're right now not in a very good position. You've allowed yourself to be in a very bad position, and it happens to be right about now. You're not in a good position.

You don't have the cards right now. With us, you start having cards. Right now, you're playing cards. You're playing cards. You're gambling with the lives of millions of people. You're gambling with World War III. You're gambling with the lives of millions of people. You're gambling with World War III. You're gambling with World War III. And what you're doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country, that's backed

you far more than a lot of people said they should have. Have you said thank you once, this entire meeting? No, in this entire meeting have you said thank you? You went to Pennsylvania and campaigned for the opposition in October offer some words of appreciation For the United States of America and the president who's trying to save your country Please you think that if you will speak very loudly about the war you can't speaking loudly He's not speaking loudly your country's in big trouble can I know no no you've done a lot of talking your country is in big trouble I know you're not winning you're not winning this I

you have a damn good chance of coming out okay because of this we are staying in our country staying strong from the very beginning of the war we've been alone and we are thankful I said thanks you haven't been along in this cabinet we gave you a president 350 billion dollars you we gave you military equipment you and your men are brave but they had to use our military what about this if you didn't have our military equipment invited me to have our military equipment this war would have been over in two weeks in In three days. I heard it from Putin.

In three days. This is something new. Maybe less. In two weeks. Of course, yes. It's going to be a very hard thing to do business like this. I tell you. Just say thank you.

I said a lot of times, say thank you to American people. Accept that there are disagreements and let's go litigate those disagreements rather than trying to fight it out in the American media when you're wrong. We know that you're wrong. But you see, I think it's good for the American people to see what's going on. I understand, sir.

I think it's very important. That's why I kept this going so long. You have to be thankful. You don't have the cards. I'm thankful. You're buried there. Your people are dying. I can tell you, Nicky.

You're running low on soldiers. Listen. Don't, please. You're running low on soldiers. It, you're running low on soldiers. It would be a damn good thing. And then you tell us, I don't want to cease fire. I don't want to cease fire. I want to go and I want this. Look, if you could get a cease fire right now,

I'd tell you you take it so the bullets stop flying and your men stop getting killed. Of course we want to stop the war. But you're saying you don't want to cease fire. I want a cease fire. Because you'll saying you don't want to ceasefire. But I said to you, I want to ceasefire. Because you'll get a ceasefire faster than an agreement. Ask our people about ceasefire. What they think.

That wasn't with me. That wasn't with me. That was with a guy named Biden, who was not a smart person. That was with Obama. It was your president. Excuse me. That was with Obama, who gave you sheets,

and I gave you javelins. I gave you the javelins. You gotta be more thankful. Because let me tell you, you don't have the cards. With us, you have the cards. But without us, you don't have the cards. With us, you have the cards. But without us, you don't have any cards." So that was the argument. The meeting ended up getting cut short. No mineral deal was signed. At this point, we don't know when or if that deal will be signed. Following the meeting, President Trump posted to True Social, he wrote, quote, We had a very meaningful meeting in the White House today. Much was learned that could never be understood without conversation under such fire and pressure.

It's amazing what comes out through emotion and I have determined that President Zelensky is not ready for peace if America is involved because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don't want advantage, I want peace. He disrespected the United States of America and its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for peace." Almost immediately after that meeting, Zelensky goes to an interview with Brett Baer on Fox News, and Baer asks Zelensky if 1. he agrees with Trump's remarks that he disrespected the American people and 2. if he would apologize for the meeting. Zelensky responded that he's thankful to the

American people, to Trump, and to Congress for all the support they've given his country, and at the same time he feels that the United States and Ukraine should be able to have honest and direct dialogue as strategic partners to be able to end the war. Baer again asks Zalensky if he would apologize. Zalensky says that he respects the president and he respects the American people and again said they need to be able to have open and honest conversation. He said he's not sure that they did anything bad, but that maybe some things need to be discussed without the media to respect democracy.

Then yesterday at a summit of European leaders in London, Zelensky said he would return to the White House if he was invited saying he's still quote, he is still quote, ready to sign the Minerals deal. So that's where we're at as of now. Again, we don't know when or if that minerals deal will end up getting signed as things currently stand, but it does seem as if both President Trump and President Zelensky are willing to resume talks. In other news, late Sunday night,

Mana Nutrition had its contract with USAID restored after it was canceled last week amid spending cuts. So I was actually going to include this as a quick hitter, but I figured we could tie it into a conversation about Doge because I still get questions rolling in every day about Doge. Let's start with Manna Nutrition specifically, then we'll get into a related story about Doge's website, how you can use it to do your own research, but we'll also talk about some inaccuracies and errors that have been posted on the site and some things you need to be cautious of.

So the CEO and founder of Man on Nutrition says that its company's contracts with USAID were reinstated late last night after being canceled last week. The development came after Elon Musk wrote on X earlier in the day on Sunday that he would investigate the canceled contract and fix it.

So John Favreau, he's a liberal political commentator and President Obama's former speechwriter, he shared a post on X about the canceled USAID contract. The post he shared was a screenshot of a CNN article that talked about how there were 400,000 boxes of USAID branded ready to, ready-to-use therapeutic foods ready to be shipped out, but that if USAID didn't pay manna nutrition for those boxes, there would be at least $10 million in wasted peanut butter. In sharing that article, Favreau wrote as the caption, Kids will die because Elon Musk starved them of food we already paid for.

So Musk then replies to Favreau's post and writes, Dollar Store John Favreau is an imbecilic propagandist who lies to score cheap political points. That said, we will investigate whether this is real or not and fix it if it is. That night is when the CEO of Manna Nutrition got the notification that the contract termination had been rescinded. So just to give you a little bit of context, these ready to use therapeutic foods are fortified with milk and vitamins and loaded with extra calories and they're sent to malnourished

children around the world. In this case, this particular contract was for a ready to use therapeutic peanut butter paste but there are other kinds of ready to use therapeutic peanut butter paste, but there are other kinds of ready to use therapeutic foods as well. Now I want to segue into our conversation about Doge. In case you didn't know, Doge now has a website, doge.gov, and on it you can find updates on the work that Doge is doing as well as other information like how much money Doge has saved the government, what the government spends its money on some government workforce information and some federal?

Regulation information in fact if you're ever curious about what doge is doing and which contracts have been canceled Doge.gov is going to be the best place for you to look but Heed my warning to take the information with a grain of salt and I'm of course going to explain why I Wouldn't just say that without a basis, but this is just to give you a heads up. This isn't to say that everything Doge is posting is wrong and inaccurate. Like I just said, it's probably your best source of information if you're trying to find, you know, a bit more about what Doge is doing and what contracts have been canceled and all of that. But there have also been mistakes. So for one, Elon Musk himself has come out and said Doge is going to make mistakes. While speaking at the president's first cabinet meeting,

Musk said, quote, I should say we'll also make mistakes. We won't be perfect. But when we make mistakes, we'll fix it very quickly. End quote. He gave an example of an earlier mistake with USAID. He said, for example, with USAID, one of the things we accidentally canceled very, very briefly was Ebola prevention. I think we all want Ebola prevention, so we restored Ebola prevention and there was no interruption. But let's talk about a few others, specifically on the Doge website, just to kind of say, hey, be cautious about the information you see. On February 25th, Doge went ahead and deleted and or revised five of its biggest savings

that had previously been listed on the website. The biggest cut on the site was an $8 billion cut at ICE, but it turns out that number was supposed to be $8 million, not $8 billion. After all, ICE's entire budget is $8 billion. Despite the error though, Doge said that was just a typo and that it had always been using the correct $8 million number in calculating Doge's total savings. The next one was three cuts each worth $655 million at USAID, which would have added up to roughly $2 billion. However, that cut was improperly triple counted. The Doge site now has one single entry and that one single entry is $18 million.

The third big cut that appears to have been a mistake is one that was listed at $232 million at the Social Security Administration. This number would have been correct if the Social Security Administration had cut its entire contract with the defense company in question. Instead, though, it only cut a small portion of their contract with the company worth about $560,000, which was supposedly part of an initiative to let users mark their genders as X. Newer receipts since February 25th also contain some errors. Just to give you a few examples, the Department of Agriculture withdrew funding from a contract for DEI training and assessment services, which saved $25 million, but receipts on DOGE

have mistakenly listed that contract four separate times. That obviously resulted in a $100 million savings calculation instead of $25 million. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau canceled a contract worth $9,999, but DOGE savings mistakenly listed it as multiple contracts. So all this to say, if you're interested in checking out what kind of savings DOGE has achieved, you can always go to doge.gov, click on the savings tab. That's going to be your best source of information, but just note that all information there might not be totally 100% accurate and that DOGE does issue updates and

corrections. Okay, second and final break here and I will be right back. Welcome back. Let's talk about the measles and the most recent update from HHS Secretary Kennedy. A northwest region in Texas known as South Plains has been experiencing a measles outbreak. And by the way, just so we're all on the same page, the CDC defines outbreak as three or more related cases. But as of Friday, which is the latest update from the Texas Department of State Health Services, since the end of January, there have been 146 cases identified. Twenty of those were hospitalized and one died.

Most of the cases have been children under the age of 18, with 70 cases in children aged 5 to 17, 46 cases in children younger than 5. 79 cases are in people who are unvaccinated, 5 cases were confirmed to have received the MMR vaccine, and 62 are listed as unknown status. So so far this year, there have been three measles outbreaks across the country and a total of 164 cases nationwide. Obviously, 146 of the 164 cases are part of this one outbreak in Texas,

which means the other two outbreaks are relatively small. New Mexico currently has an outbreak with nine reported cases. There have also been reported cases in Alaska, California, Georgia, Kentucky, New Jersey, New York City, and Rhode Island. For context, in 2024, there were a total of 285 cases and 16 outbreaks. Now, measles was declared eliminated in 2000, which means that since then, there have been no outbreaks that lasted for more than a year. And since then, there have been no outbreaks that lasted for more than a year.

And since then, we've continued to see smaller outbreaks. The largest number of reported cases since then was in 2019 when we saw about 1,274 measles cases, which came from 31 different states. However, closely related outbreaks in New York accounted for 934 of those cases in 2019, or about 75%. And 2019 was a lot higher than most years, with 2014 having the second largest amount since 2000 at 664 cases. So obviously 2019 was double the amount in 2014,

which is the most amount of cases that we've seen since 2000. Now, HHS Secretary Kennedy released a statement today the amount in 2014, which is the most amount of cases that we've seen since 2000. Now, HHS Secretary Kennedy released a statement today via an op-ed on Fox News, and it's getting some attention because of his stance towards vaccines. And I've seen some headlines that are constantly, or not constantly, that are kind of taking what he said

out of context, and obviously, as we know, as I always say, it's always important to read past the headline. So just in case you don't have time to read past the headline, I want to read you the most relevant portion of his statement. That way you can at least have a general understanding of what he had to say, even if you don't have time to read the whole thing. So he starts by saying, quote, as the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, I'm deeply concerned about the recent measles outbreak. As health care providers, community leaders, and policymakers, we have a shared responsibility to protect public health.

This includes ensuring that accurate information about vaccine safety and efficacy is disseminated. We must engage with communities to understand their concerns, provide culturally competent education, and make vaccines readily accessible for all those who want them. It is also our responsibility to provide up to date guidance on available therapeutic medications. While there is no approved antiviral for those who may be affected, CDC has recently updated their recommendation supporting administration of vitamin A under the supervision of a physician for those with mild,

moderate and severe infection. Studies have found that vitamin A can dramatically reduce measles mortality. He continues and he writes, quote, Parents play a pivotal role in safeguarding their children's health. All parents should consult with their health care providers to understand their options to get the MMR vaccine. The decision to vaccinate is a personal one. Vaccines not only protect individual children from measles, but also contribute to community community immunity, protecting those who are unable to get vaccinated due to medical reasons. Tens of thousands died with or of measles annually

in the 19th century America. By 1960, before the vaccine's introduction, improvements in sanitation and nutrition had eliminated 90% of measles deaths. Good nutrition remains a best defense against most chronic and infectious illnesses. Vitamins A, C, and D and foods rich in vitamins B12, C, and E should be a part of the balanced diet. The measles outbreak in Texas is a call to action for all of us to reaffirm our commitment to public health. By working together parents, health care providers, community leaders, and government officials, we can prevent future outbreaks and protect the health of our nation. Under my leadership, HHS is and will be always committed to radical transparency to regain the public's trust in its health agencies." End quote. So like I said, that was

just part of his statement. I do have the link for you to the full statement in the sources section. Otherwise, you can just Google Kennedy's measles statement Fox News op-ed something along those lines. It'll pop right up for you. But that is what you need to know there That's what you need to know about the measles outbreak. Let's continue right along Per reports defense secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered the US Cyber Command to suspend offensive cyber planning and operations against Russia. Notably, the order has not been made public, but internal sources familiar with the situation have shared information with multiple news outlets, which is what I am going to share with you. Hegseth apparently gave the order late last month, though it just now started making waves in the news. The order reportedly applies to the U.S. Cyber

Command, which is a part of the Department of Defense. It's in charge of the US cyberspace. The National Security Agency or NSA, which is another agency within the Department of Defense, is not included in this order, which presumably means that cyber espionage against Russia conducted specifically by the NSA can continue. Now here's where the reporting differs a bit depending on which reports you read. According to the Washington Post, the order does not suspend planning for potential operations against Russian networks.

It just suspends actual operations. Other outlets, however, have reported that the order tells the US Cyber Command to halt both planning and operations. So we don't have a ton of clarity there. As far as why this order was given, that we don't know either. It's speculated the order is part of an effort to get Putin to start talking about Ukraine

because officials who allegedly spoke with the Washington Post said that the suspension is only supposed to last as long as it takes to end the Russia-Ukraine war. So that's what we know. Now let's talk about some quick hitters. Last week, the Education Department sent out an email offering its employees a one-time $25,000 voluntary separation incentive payment or the equivalence of severance pay, whichever is

less. Per the email, it is a one-time offer with a deadline of tonight at 11.59 p.m. in advance of a quote, very significant reduction in force for the Department of Education. And those who take the offer can stack it with retirement benefits. Most department employees are eligible, though there are a few exceptions, including for those that are using disability retirement,

those that received a student loan repayment benefit in the last 36 months, or those that were awarded a retention bonus in the last 12 months. And that were awarded a retention bonus in the last 12 months. And in a federal lawsuit out of Seattle, a judge has granted a two-week pause on President Trump's executive order prohibiting federal funding for gender transition treatments for individuals under the age of 19. The plaintiffs, which include the states of Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Colorado, and

three individual doctors, argue that the executive order discriminates against transgender and gender diverse people by criminalizing health care that is quote lawful state-regulated, medically appropriate and necessary and specific to their health needs while the same care is provided to cisgender people for other purposes. That's obviously an equal protection claim. The plaintiffs also argued that the executive order usurps Congress's spending power by making access to the funds conditional and violates the Tenth Amendment which reserves powers not given to the federal government to the states. So the actual oral arguments were heard in this case on the 27th of February but

the judge granted a two-week pause until she issues a final case on the 27th of February, but the judge granted a two-week pause until she issues a final decision on the matter, which essentially means that for now the executive order is temporarily blocked in the four states involved in the lawsuit. Once the judge does issue a final decision, it's likely that the losing parties will appeal to the appropriate appellate circuit. And the Trump administration has eliminated the General Services Administration's technology unit known as the 18F office. The team was comprised of researchers, web designers, and product managers who helped

federal agencies use technology to better serve the public. The official website for the 18F office was taken offline Saturday, the same day the termination emails were sent to employees. That email stated that the team had been deemed non-critical and that the cuts were being made in alignment with the president's workforce optimization executive order and a recent memo from the GSA requiring cutting non-essential consulting functions.

And now it's time for some critical thinking, a segment where I just encourage you to think a bit deeper about a particular story or issue and sort of challenge your own views and beliefs. Typically, the critical thinking segment will tie back to a story in the episode, but sometimes not. For today, let's revisit a story from last week's episode. If you didn't hear the episode, it's fine.

I'm going to recap what we're talking about. But last week, we talked about this new Department of Defense memo that says, service members who have, quote, a current diagnosis or history of or exhibit symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria will be processed for separation from military service." End quote. As we discussed, that memo also laid out when an individual might qualify for a waiver, allowing them to remain in the service despite identifying with a gender different than their biological sex.

The memo states that waivers will be issued on a case-by-case basis if a service member one demonstrates 36 consecutive months of stability in the service member's sex without clinically significant distress or impairment, two demonstrates that he or she has never attempted to transition to any sex other than their sex, and three is willing and able to adhere to all applicable standards. So as I said in last week's episode, it seems, according to the language of the memo, that a service member can stay in the military even if they identify with another sex, so long as they have never attempted to transition, they haven't had any periods of instability in how

they view their sex in the last three years, and so long as they are willing and able to adhere to applicable standards. But if a member does not meet those three requirements, they'll be removed from service. So in thinking about this, first check in with yourself. What are your initial thoughts? Maybe you're in favor of the policy because you feel it prioritizes military readiness. Maybe you're against the policy because you feel it unfairly discriminates. Either way, check in with yourself, what are your initial thoughts and feelings? What comes to mind? Once you've done that, I want you to apply

the following hypotheticals depending on where you stand. So if you are in favor of the policy, I want you to imagine a situation where a highly skilled and decorated service member who has never had any negative evaluations or any adverse administrative action is discharged due to this policy. Do you still feel that the policy is justified and or prioritizes military readiness as it

is intended to do? Now if you are against the policy, consider the argument that the military enforces strict physical and medical standards for all service members. If medical conditions that require ongoing medical treatment can disqualify any individual from the service, should people who require transgender care, whether it be puberty blockers, hormones, et cetera, ongoing treatment, be an exception to this rule or should they be held to the same medical standard that all other members of the service are held to? And finally, regardless of where you stand,

whether you're in favor or against, I want you to challenge yourself to think of an alternative solution that serves as a compromise for both sides. I don't wanna give you any hints or lead you one way or the other. I just want you to challenge yourself to, you know, get creative and see what you can come up with.

Something other than what this memo sets forth that feels like it would be a middle ground for both sides of the debate. That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here, as always. I hope you have a fantastic next couple of days and I will talk to you again on Thursday.