UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (3/6/25): Fact-Checking Trump's Congressional Address, Trump's Tariff Debacle, Education Dept.'s 'Final Mission,' Ukraine Aid Paused, and More.

Episode Date: March 6, 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: U.S. Pauses Ukraine Aid (0:35) President Trump's Tariff Debacle (5:55) 'Abbey Gate' Terrorist Arrested By DOJ (11:07) Supreme Court to Decide Whether U.S. Gun Manufacturers Can Be Held Liable for Cartel Gun Violence in Mexico (13:55) Supreme Court Says San Francisco Can Continue Dumping Waste into Pacific Ocean (20:02) Supreme Court Says Trump Administration Has to Comply With Order Requiring $2B in Foreign Aid Payments (23:17) Education Dept. Secretary Releases Memo Detailing 'Final Mission' (27:43) Dismantling Education Dept. Q&A Here. Fact-Checking Trump's Congressional Address (30:54) Quick Hitters: Trump Admin Drops Idaho Abortion Ban Suit Filed By Biden Admin, US Stops Deportation Flights on Military Planes, Guatemalan National Arrested in Largest US Smuggling Ring, Rep. Al Green Censured by House, CBO Says Medicare Has to Be Cut for Republicans to Achieve Budget Plans (41:13) 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 Thursday, March 6th. Let's talk about some news. Before we do, though, I do quickly want to remind everyone that my podcast is available in video format on YouTube. The YouTube link is always in each episode description, so you don't have to go searching. If you're one of those that likes to watch rather than listen, or you wanna watch my show as a nightly news show or a morning news show, YouTube is your place.

So again, you can find that link in the episode description. Okay, let's start with some news from earlier this week. The United States has paused all military aid and some intelligence aid to Ukraine following that heated conversation in the Oval Office last week. If you tuned in last week, you heard that five-minute exchange between the president, the vice president, and President Zelensky.

But in a nutshell, President Zelensky had come to the United States to sign a minerals deal with President Trump, and their Oval Office meeting ended up getting tense when Vice President Vance suggested that the right way to handle the conflict with Russia is to engage in proper diplomacy and conversation and not badmouth one side or the other, but just instead act as this neutral third party mediator. Zelensky then brought up the fact that no president since 2014 has ever effectively stopped Putin and that some of

those presidents have tried this proper diplomacy that Vance was talking about and it hasn't worked. So he wasn't understanding what Vance meant by diplomacy and asked him to clarify. That's when Vance and President Trump started telling Zelensky that, you know, he's not appreciative for what the United States has done for Ukraine. Ukraine wouldn't have anything if it weren't for the US, et cetera, et cetera. The meeting ended, the minerals deal wasn't signed,

but even after that, it did seem as if both presidents were still and are still willing to talk at a later date, and they likely will, just based off of what we know of the situation. But earlier this week, just days after that Oval Office meeting, the United States announced a pause on all military aid to Ukraine. And then the following day on Wednesday, an administration official said the pause also includes a partial pause on intelligence aid as well, meaning the United States is holding off on providing Ukraine with certain information about Russia while this pause is in effect.

with certain information about Russia, while this pause is in effect. The State Department wrote in a press release on Tuesday, quote, As President Trump and Secretary Rubio have stated, it is the policy of the United States that the conflict between Ukraine and Russia is unsustainable and must end. The United States will use our leverage, influence and national power to advance peace and implement a sustainable solution to this conflict. The president has been clear that he is focused on peace. Effective March 3rd, 2025, we are pausing and reviewing our aid to ensure that it is contributing to a solution." That press release then goes on to list the various military assistance that's been provided to Ukraine since 2014. Notably, Russia's invasion or most recent invasion, I should say, wasn't until February 2022. But the press release details three numbers.

So it says $66.5 billion has been given to Ukraine since Russia launched its attack in 2022, 69.2 billion since Russia's initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014, and $31.7 billion since August 2021, specifically using the Presidential Drawdown Authority. Importantly, those numbers reflect military aid, not assistance generally. The Special Inspector General for Government Oversight of the U.S.-Ukraine Response says Congress has appropriated or otherwise made available nearly $183 billion in total assistance since Russia's invasion in 2022. But if you're interested in reading more about the drawdown authority or types of weapons

and aid that have been provided to Ukraine in recent years, I do have that State Department press release linked in the sources. That press release was issued on March 4th, just hours after President Zelensky wrote on X, quote, I would like to reiterate Ukraine's commitment to peace. None of us wants an endless war. Ukraine is ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible to bring lasting peace closer. Nobody wants peace more than Ukrainians.

My team and I stand ready to work under President Trump's strong leadership to get a peace that lasts. We are ready to work fast to end the war and the first stages could be the release of prisoners and troops in the sky, ban on missiles, long-ranged drones, bombs on energy, and other civilian infrastructure and troops in the sea immediately if Russia will do the same. Then we want to move very fast through all next stages and to work with the U.S. to agree a to agree a strong final deal." End quote. He went on to say that he's appreciative of America and specifically the moment when President Trump provided Ukraine with javelins, a type of weapon. He said the meeting in the Oval Office is regrettable and that it's time to make things right. Following that or following that post by Zelensky, President Trump wrote on Truth Social, quote, This is the worst statement that could have been made by by

Zelensky and America will not put up with it for much longer. It is what I was saying. This guy doesn't want there to be peace as long as he has America's backing and Europe in the meeting they had with Zelensky stated flatly that they cannot do the job without the US. Probably not a great statement to have been made in terms of a show of strength against Russia. What are they thinking?" End quote. That is when the State Department issued the press release announcing the pause on Ukraine aid. So that's what we know as far as events leading up to it. That's also what we know about the pause. Again, like I said, it's a pause on all military aid that is in route to Ukraine. So this doesn't apply to the aid that's already in Ukraine.

And then a partial pause on intelligence aid as well. Moving on to the tariff situation. And let me just say that this is constantly developing. So just bear with me on this. I'll talk about what we know at this current moment, which is 3 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday. As we have discussed in the past, President Trump has had these plans to impose tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico. The 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico ended up getting put on hold last month after the president reached agreements with the leaders of both countries to increase border security. But the tariffs on China were implemented as originally planned, and China saw a 10% tariff on all goods.

The agreements with Canada and Mexico expired this week, and the tariffs on both countries took effect on Tuesday. So 25% on all products from both Mexico and Canada, except Canadian energy, which would see a lower 10% tariff China's tariff was also increased this week to 20% However, the president said shipments worth less than $800 would be exempt in response to this Canada said It would impose a 25% tariff on up to $155 billion worth of American goods, starting

with tariffs on $30 billion worth of goods immediately and the tariffs on the remaining $125 billion in 21 days' time. China said it would impose a 15% tariff on chicken, wheat, corn, and cotton, and a 10% tariff on sorghum, soybeans, pork, beef, fruits, vegetables, dairy products, and fish, and those tariffs are set to take effect on Monday. However, China has already imposed a 10-15% tax on certain agricultural products and imposed export controls on US aviation, defense, and tech firms after adding them to a list of unreliable entities.

That happened last month. Yesterday, on Wednesday, Trump said he would be issuing a one-month exemption. So at this point, the tariffs had already taken effect, right? They took effect on Tuesday. But on Wednesday, Trump said he would be issuing a one-month exemption on tariffs on Mexico and Canada, specifically for US automakers. That announcement came after he spoke with the big three automakers here in the United States. Then today, the president said there would be a one month tariff delay on all products that are covered by the US-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Treaty, which President Trump negotiated

in his first term. The new commerce secretary also said today that the president would likely announce the same one month delay on all Canadian tariffs by the end of the day. So it's possible that happens by the time this episode is out. So like I said, this situation is changing by the minute. Now a lot of people are confused about the way tariffs work and what the arguments are on both sides of this. In short, and I'm keeping this short purposely, I've said it in the past, we could spend a

whole episode on tariffs, but in short, tariffs are a tax imposed on products brought into the United States from countries facing the tariffs. The tax is paid by the importer. So let's just say there's a 10% tariff on Chinese goods. The American importer is going to pay a 10% tax to the US Treasury when they import that Chinese good. Consequently, tariffs can cause the price of goods to increase because the importer has to make up

for that extra cost, right? When that happens, there are two routes for a U.S. importer to take. They either continue importing from that country, pay the tariff to the treasury, and likely increase the cost of the good for the consumer to account for their loss, or they look for another country to import from where

they can get a better price and or not have to pay a tariff at all, potentially even even sourcing from a country here in the United States. Obviously though, if American importers are looking elsewhere for goods, the country that's losing American business is probably going to reduce the cost of their good to keep their competitive advantage. This and or losing the importer customer completely is bad for their economy. And that's why some say that tariffs can have an effect of hurting other countries' economies and or incentivizing other countries to help with our concerns like border security, drug trafficking, et cetera, because obviously if they help us, maybe they don't face

tariffs. But the question is, if tariffs increase the cost of goods, why would we impose them? Well, those that are in favor of tariffs argue that if the tariffs do as they're intended to do, which is to get countries to change their behavior for the benefit of the United States, then the tariffs are only temporary and will have a better outcome in the future. In other words, short-term pain for long-term gain. The other argument in favor of tariffs is that they can have the effect of boosting U.S. manufacturing because now these American exporters that were importing from other countries

may turn to U.S. manufacturing instead and put more money back into the U.S. economy. Or maybe the companies that are based in other countries that are facing tariffs from the US and are now losing American business, just come manufacture in the US instead. So that's your little crash course on tariffs. Like I said, we've seen a lot of change with this tariff situation.

It's basically changing by the minute. So this is just where we're at as of now, but things could change. By the time this episode comes out. Who really knows? Just keep that in mind. Earlier this week, the DOJ arrested and charged a man known as Jafar, who the DOJ says is the terrorist that orchestrated Abigate,

which was the bombing at the Kabul airport in 2021 that took the life of 13 US service members. So you probably remember our withdrawal from Afghanistan, but just in case, the US withdrew the last of its troops from Afghanistan in 2021. As the US pulled out, the Taliban regained control of the country. It created this refugee crisis. Afghans were fleeing. Some of those Afghans sought refuge in the United States. But specifically on August 26th, 2021, American and coalition forces were evacuating themselves and civilians at Kabul's International Airport when a man detonated a body-worn IED at Abbey Gate,

which was the main entry point to the airport. The bomb killed roughly 160 Afghan civilians and 13 U.S. service members. This guy, Jafar, was in prison in Afghanistan from 2019 until August 2021. He was freed about two weeks before the bombing. He's been a member of ISIS-K since 2016, which is the Afghan offshoot of ISIS, and he has helped ISIS-K carry out multiple attacks over the years, including Abigate. Before Abigate, though, in 2016, an ISIS-K suicide bomber intended to target the U.S. embassy in Kabul but instead hit the Canadian embassy, killing 10 guards, multiple civilians. Jafar allegedly was responsible for conducting surveillance for that attack and transporting the bomber to the target area.

Last year, an ISIS-K gunman attacked a concert hall in Russia, killing about 130 people, and Jafar was allegedly responsible for sharing instructions with other ISIS-K members on how to use various weapons prior to the attack. And for Abigate, Jafar was allegedly responsible for scouting the route near the Kabul airport and checking for law enforcement and American slash Taliban checkpoints ahead of the bombing. According to the DOJ, when Jafar was released from prison in the weeks leading up to the attack, he was contacted by ISIS-K members. He was given a motorcycle, funds for a cell phone and SIM card, and instructions to open an account on a social media platform to communicate with ISIS-K members during the Abigate attack operation. So about a week ago, Jafar was arrested near the Pakistan-

Afghanistan border by a Pakistani security agency.afar was arrested near the Pakistan Afghanistan border by a Pakistani security agency. He was extradited to the United States. He has since been charged with providing and conspiring to provide material support and resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization, resulting in death, and he faces life in prison if convicted.

For now, he will be detained in Alexandria, Virginia, and he has his first detention hearing set for Monday. life in prison if convicted. For now, he will be detained in Alexandria, Virginia and has his first detention hearing set for Monday. So let's take our first break here to hear from some of our sponsors and I will be right back. Welcome back. Let's talk about some Supreme Court matters, starting with this case that the court heard earlier this week that asks the question of whether US gun manufacturers can be held liable for injuries to the Mexican government by drug cartels in Mexico. So in 2021, Mexico filed this lawsuit against Smith & Wesson and six other major US arms

manufacturers seeking $10 billion to compensate it for harm caused by cartels with weapons produced by US gun manufacturers. The harm being the killing of children, judges, journalists, police officers, as well as ordinary citizens throughout Mexico. The lowest court, the district court, which is who first heard this case, ruled in favor of the gun manufacturers. Mexico then appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of Mexico. And following that, the gun manufacturers brought this case to the Supreme Court, and here we are. So let's talk about the issue at the core of this case.

In 2005, Congress passed a law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. In short, that law protects gun manufacturers from customer misuse of their products. Firearm manufacturers and distributors are not and cannot be liable for crimes committed or harm caused by the illegal use of their products. However, the law also says that a gun manufacturer can be held liable if the alleged harm stemmed from a situation where the manufacturer aided, abetted, or conspired to sell a product either knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the buyer was prohibited from possessing a gun. In other words, if US arms manufacturers

aid in and abet it in selling weapons to cartels, they are not protected by the language of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. So Mexico's lawyers argued at oral arguments this week that US gun manufacturers market guns as military style weapons to entice cartels to purchase these weapons, and that manufacturers use this three-tier distribution system that allows them to sell to cartels knowingly. In other words, what this lawyer said is,

the gun makers sell to the gun dealers, who then sell to the gun buyers, who act as straw purchasers for someone who can't legally buy a gun in Mexico because they're part of a cartel, and those straw purchasers then sell the firearms to the cartels. The lawyer for Mexico argued that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was intended to protect against gun manufacturers being held liable for actions that are solely caused by criminals, but not situations like this one, where the gun makers themselves have violated the law by knowingly selling in a way that allows cartels to purchase the guns. The attorney further argued that Congress could have barred all lawsuits against the gun industry, but it didn't, and as she claimed, Congress instead chose to create exceptions for claims like this one

that Mexico is bringing. The lawyer representing the gun manufacturers, though, said that when Congress passed this law, it intended to prohibit lawsuits like this one, and that Congress wanted to protect the Second Amendment rights of Americans by preventing plaintiffs from bankrupting the gun industry through frivolous lawsuits like this one. The attorney for the manufacturers also pointed to a 2023 Supreme Court case against Twitter, where a family member of a victim in a 2017 terrorist attack in Turkey tried to sue Twitter

for providing a platform for terrorist organizations recruiting and fundraising. But in that case, the Supreme Court held, quote, "'Simply engaging in normal business practices is not enough to make someone an accomplice to a crime, even if they know that the products they make may be criminally misused downstream.'" So the attorney is saying similarly

here, gun manufacturers selling guns in their normal course of business is not enough to make them an accomplice to a crime even if they know that those guns might eventually be used criminally. During arguments, the justices were trying to answer two questions. Number one, whether the gunmakers had aided and abetted violations of US law. And two, if so, whether the gun makers conduct caused Mexico's injuries. Because keep in mind, for US manufacturers to be liable for Mexico's injuries, their actions have to have proximately caused the injuries at issue. There could be no break in that chain of causation.

So it's possible that the gun makers aided and abetted violations of law in the way that they sell, but didn't proximately cause Mexico's injuries and therefore they wouldn't be liable in this case. Now from what we saw at arguments, it seems the justices will rule in favor of the gun manufacturers. Both conservative and liberal justices pushed back against Mexico's arguments and implied that they needed stronger evidence. Justice Kagan for one, one of the liberal justices pushed back against Mexico's arguments and implied that they needed stronger evidence. Justice Kagan for one, one of the liberal justices on the bench, she asked for specific examples of dealers supported by US gun manufacturers who sold directly to cartels and some of the justices were

not satisfied with the answer that Mexico gave. Justices Barrett and Alito being two of those justices, they wanted more. Justice Jackson similarly took issue with the available evidence, saying at one point, quote, I worry that without that clarity and a complaint like yours, we don't really see how the manufacturers are violating a particular state or federal law that we're running up against the very concerns that motivated this act to begin with. End quote. Justice Kavanaugh also had some concerns about how Mexico's arguments would hurt the United States more broadly if the court were to accept those arguments and establish that precedent. So like I said, we'll probably

see this one go in favor of the gun manufacturers, but stay tuned. We should have that decision in the next couple of months. Moving on to another case out of the Supreme Court. This one a ruling to another case out of the Supreme Court, this one a ruling though. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city of San Francisco in finding that San Francisco can continue to discharge wastewater or sewage into the Pacific Ocean because the EPA cannot enforce

these broad and undefined water quality standards when issuing wastewater discharge permits. So let's break this down a little bit. We'll keep this brief. Last year, San Francisco filed a complaint against the EPA challenging the terms of its wastewater discharge permit for its Oceanside Wastewater Treatment Facility. San Francisco operates two facilities,

the Bayside Facility, which discharges into the San Francisco Bay, the Oceanside Facility, which discharges into the Pacific Ocean. When the Oceanside facility which discharges into the Pacific Ocean. And when I say discharge, I'm talking about anything that goes down the drain. Sinks, showers, toilets, washing machines, as well as rain gutters and storm drains. So all of that stuff gets treated at these facilities and then released. But sometimes during periods of heavy rain, the combination of wastewater and stormwater can exceed a facility's capacity and the result

may be the discharge of untreated water, including raw sewage, into the waterway, in this case, the Pacific Ocean. So in 1994, the EPA adopted this CSO control policy, which requires municipalities with combined systems like this to go through a two-year permitting process and take certain measures and develop a long-year permitting process and take certain measures and develop a long-term control plan. Since then, the permit for San Francisco's Oceanside facility has been renewed without issue.

But in 2019, the EPA issued a renewal permit that added two end result requirements. The first prohibited the facility from making any discharge that contributes to a violation of any applicable water quality standard for receiving bodies of water. The second provided that San Francisco cannot perform any treatment or make any discharge that creates pollution, contamination, or nuisance as defined by California law. So upon receiving this renewal, San Francisco says, hey, these provisions are way too vague and can lead to penalties for factors that are beyond our control. So they file a complaint with the EPA.

The EPA rejects the challenge. San Francisco then brings it to the court. The district court rules in favor of San Francisco, finding that the EPA's use of vague water quality standards was inappropriate. They said the EPA should instead be required to establish specific measurable limits on pollutants. The EPA

then appeals and on appeal the appellate court affirmed the district court's decision. So then the EPA takes it to the Supreme Court and the question for the court was whether the EPA can impose these generic prohibitions in its permits for the city's water discharge under the Clean Water Act without specifying limits on discharges. Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed with the two courts below. The decision was 5-4, so it was close, and the majority of justices held that these vague standards are not sufficient to ensure the protection of water quality. The court noted that the EPA has broad authority to enforce pollution standards, but said that the EPA cannot impose rules that are too vague or open to interpretation. The majority focused on the idea that the Clean Water Act is designed to regulate water

pollution and therefore allowing vague narrative standards wouldn't meet the law's goal of providing clear, enforceable limits on pollution. One last Supreme Court ruling to cover, this one about foreign aid. This is actually an update to last Thursday's episode. We talked about the Chief Justice issuing an emergency order of sorts that said that the Trump administration does not yet have to pay the roughly $2 billion in foreign aid that a district court had previously ordered it to pay. To recap briefly, the Trump administration was sued when it chose not to make certain payments related to foreign aid as part of its efforts to review and cut spending within the government. A judge ordered the administration to pay the amount owed for work already completed by the foreign aid programs by last week.

The administration took it to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts issued a last minute decision ahead of that payment deadline, basically saying, let's put this on pause for now, the administration doesn't have to pay yet, let's review the arguments on both sides, we'll come to a more final decision in the days to come. So the most recent update is that on Tuesday of this week, the Supreme Court officially found that the administration does have to make the payments for work already completed by these groups in compliance with the lower court's order. As we've talked about before, orders from the Supreme Court are different than opinions. for work already completed by these groups in compliance with the lower court's order. As we've talked about before,

orders from the Supreme Court are different than opinions. Orders do not have to give a rationale for ruling one way or another, nor do orders have to specify which justices ruled in which way. In this order though, we actually do know which justices ruled which way because Justice Alito wrote a dissent

and Justices Thomas Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined that dissent, meaning those four justices ruled which way because Justice Alito wrote a dissent and justices Thomas Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined that dissent, meaning those four justices disagreed with the court's decision to require the administration to issue payments. Now, because any decision from the court requires a majority of at least five justices, we can assume that the other five justices, those that didn't join the dissent, joined the majority. As far as the rationale for the decision, the Chief Justice wrote in the order this, On February 25th, the District Court ordered the government to issue payments for a portion of the Paws disbursements, those owed for work already completed before the issuance of the District

Court's temporary restraining order, by 11.59 p.m. on February 26th. Several hours before that deadline, the government filed this application to vacate the district court's order and requested an immediate administrative stay. The Chief Justice entered an administrative stay shortly before the 1159 p.m. deadline and subsequently referred the application to the court, meaning the rest of the justices. The application is denied. Given that the deadline in the challenged order has now passed, and in light of the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings, the district court should clarify what obligations the government must fulfill to ensure compliance with its temporary restraining order with due regard for the feasibility of any

compliance timelines." And that's the extent of what we got as far as the rationale goes. There really wasn't much. It just said, essentially, the application is denied. As far as the dissent goes, Justice Alito acknowledged the district court's frustration with the government and that the aid groups have serious concerns about non-payment for completed work. but he said that the Supreme Court's denial of the administration's request to lift the lower court's order is quote, quite simply, too extreme a response. A federal court has many tools to address a party's supposed nonfeasance. Self-aggrandizement of its jurisdiction is not one of them, end quote. In other words, he thinks the

majority chose the wrong path in rejecting the administration's appeal. Now here's where the court system gets a little tricky. So now that the Supreme Court has sent this back to the district court, the district court is going to hold a hearing and decide when the administration has to issue payment by. The district court judge will also be deciding whether to grant the plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction, which if granted, would lift the administration's freeze on future foreign aid payments. So if that's granted, the preliminary injunction request, the administration can appeal that decision and it may very well end up back in the Supreme Court's hands. In other words,

the decision we got this week from the Supreme Court pertained to payments for work already completed by foreign assistance programs. But the next issue will be what happens to foreign assistance payments for future work? Can those be paused or must they be paid? That is the next decision we may see head to the Supreme Court. All right, moving away from the Supreme Court and instead to the Department of Education, Linda McMahon, the new education department secretary, released a statement this week regarding the final mission of the department.

She wrote, quote, "'As I've learned many times throughout my career, "'disruption leads to innovation and gets results. "'We must start thinking about our final mission "'at the department as an overhaul, "'a last chance to restore the culture of liberty and excellence that made American education great." End quote.

McMahon wrote that parents should be the primary decision makers in their children's education, that publicly funded education should focus on math, reading, science, and history, but not on DEI programs or gender ideology, and that post-secondary education should prepare students for well-paying and demand careers.

Her press release further stated that as secretary, she aims to align the education department with the president's vision and return education to the states, that American education can be the best in the world, but that it's currently corrupted by political ideologies, special interests and unjust discrimination, that there is a bureaucratic red tape creating a significant barrier to American education, and that the department's job is to eliminate bureaucratic bloat from the department,

which will profoundly impact staff, budgets, and agency operations at the department. So obviously this final mission phrase implies the end of the education department, and I've received a ton of questions about what that would look like. The short answer is that we don't know exactly. Here's what I can tell you though.

For one, certain functions of the education department are codified in existing laws, like the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as well as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. What this means is that the enforcement and execution of these laws would become the responsibility of either the states, but most likely probably the DOJ.

In other words, these things can't just go away because the education department goes away. These are laws. At the same time, many functions of the education department are not part of the law. For those functions, we might see some get eliminated, we might see some handed over to other departments, we might see states bear the responsibility

for some of those things, and we might even see some of these things become privatized. We don't know with any degree of certainty. But as examples, if the education department were to be dismantled, maybe federal funding instead is distributed to the states directly as block grants, and then states would be responsible for the appropriation of funds.

Federal student loans might instead be managed by another federal department, or they might be privatized. Enforcement of discrimination in schools would likely be absorbed by the DOJ, or maybe it becomes the responsibility of families to sue when discrimination happens. As much as I wish I could give you a clear answer, no one has them, but those are just some of the possibilities. What I will do is I will

link a previous episode I did about the potential dismantling of the education department. I did a little Q&A where I answered a lot of your questions, so if you're interested, check the episode description for this episode for that link. That's where it'll be Let's take our second and final break here when we come back. We'll fact-check Trump's congressional address Okay, welcome back this week. President Trump gave his first address to Congress and touched on issues like immigration energy The economy trade and foreign policy Let's let's fact- check some of the claims submitted by all of you earlier this week on Instagram.

While listing various Doge findings, the president said Doge found $8 million for making mice transgender. Let's talk about it. So there's two things we need to talk about here. On one hand, some people are saying that the president confused transgender mice with transgenic

mice. Transgenic, as it pertains to mice, refers to the process of adding human cells to mice so that when researchers introduce diseases to the mice to study these diseases, the tissue reacts more like human tissue would react. The mice are genetically modified, if you will. This is not... Transgender mice are genetically modified, if you will. This is not... Transgender mice are different than transgenic mice. The University of Cincinnati was recently awarded eight million dollars for research, which in part relates to transgenic experiments. So

that's why some people believe that's where the eight million dollar reference is coming from. However, the other thing we need to talk about is the statement that the White House released after the congressional address titled, Yes, Biden Spent Millions on Transgender Animal Experiments. In that release, the White House cites to six different federal grants given to institutions around the country to perform what the White House calls, quote, transgender experiments on mice. So we'll go through each one of these grants. I'll give you a brief layman's term explanation

of the focus of each study because just based off the title, it's kind of hard to know what the study is about. So I'll give you a little short explanation. The first grant is listed at $455,000 for a mouse model to test the effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy on HIV vaccine induced immune responses. This study is focused on understandingming hormone therapy on HIV vaccine-induced immune responses. This study is focused on understanding how hormone therapy, specifically estrogen and anti-testosterone treatments, affects the immune system,

especially in transgender individuals who are at a higher risk for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. And the study is comparing the immune response of hormone-treated mice to control male mice and then looks at how these responses compare to data from human studies of transgender women who have undergone hormone therapy. The second grant listed is a $2.5 million award for reproductive consequences of steroid

hormone administration. This study is focused on understanding the impact of testosterone therapy on the reproductive health of transgender men and transgender adolescents. Researchers have created a mouse model that mimics testosterone therapy in transgender men to determine how testosterone affects fertility and whether fertility can be regained after stopping testosterone therapy. The next one, just shy of $300,000 for gender-affirming testosterone therapy

on breast cancer risk and treatment outcomes. This study is focused on investigating the breast cancer risks and treatment concerns for those transitioning from female to male, particularly focusing on how testosterone therapy impacts breast health. transitioning from female to male, particularly focusing on how testosterone therapy impacts breast health. Then there's $735,000 for microbiome-mediated effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy

in mice. This study looks at the effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy on skeletal maturation in transgender individuals and focuses on how changes in the gut microbiome might influence those effects. Then there's 1.2 million for androgen effects on the reproductive neuroendocrine axis. This one has two main focuses, the first one to be studied on humans, the second to be studied on mice. The study on mice uses female mice and injects them with testosterone to see how the testosterone affects the brain's reproductive hormone system. And then finally, 3.1 million for gonadal

hormones as mediators of sex and gender influences in asthma. This study uses mouse models to investigate the mechanisms behind sex and gender differences in asthma, and it'll explore estrogen's impact on inflammation and asthma for both males and females offering insights into sex and gender-specific factors in asthma, including the effects of feminizing hormone therapy in transgender women. So those are the grants that the White House has cited to. Those grants total $8.2 million, which lines up with that $8 million number that the president

gave at the address. Moving on, Trump stopped political weaponization. What he said was, we've ended weaponized government where, as an example, a sitting president is allowed to viciously prosecute his political opponent like me. So what he was referring to is his executive order that he signed on January 20th called ending the weaponization of the federal government, which tasked the attorney general and heads of departments and agencies to review activities over the last four years that constitute political weaponization. Now, the order directs the departments to take quote unquote appropriate action to quote correct past misconduct by the federal government related to the weaponization of law enforcement

and of the intelligence community. So it's still yet to be seen what correcting past misconduct looks like and whether that means going after those that weaponized politics in the past. But that is the executive order that he was referring to when he made that remark. Similarly, the president claimed, quote, I've stopped all government censorship and brought back free speech in America. It's back." End quote. Again, what he's referring to is his executive order titled Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship. The policy in that order essentially says that federal employees cannot take action that abridges free speech and no taxpayer resources can be used to abridge free speech. It also

calls for correcting past misconduct, and Trump specifically referenced government pressure on social media companies. However, at the same time, Trump has also taken actions that can be seen as inhibiting free speech, like barring the Associated Press from the Oval Office for opting to use the name Gulf of Mexico, despite the name change to Gulf of America. Talking about the new Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the President said, I am pleased to report that in January, the U.S. Army had its single best recruiting month in 15 years, and that all armed services are

having among the best recruiting results ever in the history of our services. What a difference. So to add some color, last month, the Army posted on X that US Army recruiting had their most productive December in 15 years by enlisting 346 soldiers daily. The key phrase there is the most productive December. So August of 2024 actually saw the highest number of recruits with about 7,400 recruits. December saw 58 or 5,900 recruits. So when Trump said the best recruiting month in 15 years, he was likely referencing the army's most productive month of December. The army saw better recruiting numbers

pre-election. And we don't get no recruitment numbers for January yet, but the army secretary has said they're on track to reach their recruitment goals for 2025, whatever that might be. While discussing how he's, quote, working tirelessly to end the savage conflict in Ukraine, the president said quote, we've spent perhaps 350 billion and they've spent 100 billion, they being Europe. According to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, the total amount including financial, military and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine given between February 2022 and December 2024 is 123 billion from the US and 124 billion from Europe.

However, I did give you that number earlier in this episode, which was closer to 180 billion. So those are the rough numbers, but it's not 350 billion. The US has given the most military aid when it comes to us compared to Europe, specifically worth about $68 billion, which is included in that number I previously gave you. The president said, quote, I also signed an order to cut off all taxpayer funding to any institution that engages in the sexual mutilation of our youth. Now I want Congress to pass a bill permanently banning and criminalizing sex changes

on children and forever ending the lie that any child is trapped in the wrong body. A lot of people are wondering if transgender kids have ever been allowed to get sex changes. So here's the answer. 26 states currently ban all gender transition treatments for minors. The remaining states vary on what is allowed.

For states where treatments for minors, the remaining states vary on what is allowed. For states where treatments for minors is acceptable, the current standards typically recommend that those transitioning from male to female don't start hormones until they are 13 or 14, and for female to male, 14 to 15 years old. So yes, some states do allow gender transitioning hormones for minors. In most cases, people have to wait until they're 18 to get any sort of gender transition surgery, but some states do allow minors to get surgery as young as 16 or 17 so long as parental consent is given. In talking about energy, the president said, quote, the previous administration cut the number of new oil and gas leases by 95%, slowed pipeline

construction to a halt, and closed more than 100 power plants. We are opening up many of those power plants right now." End quote. So power plants across the country actually increased during the Biden administration. There were 11,070 power plants in 2020 compared to 13,257 in 2023. That's according to the Energy Information Administration. What Trump might be referring to is the coal-fired power plants during the period between 2020 and 2023. The Biden administration closed 57 of those. And as far as crude oil production, it was during the Biden administration that crude

oil production reached a new record with 12.9 million barrels per day. In talking about immigration, the president said, within hours of taking the oath of office, I declared a national emergency on our southern border and I deployed the US military and border patrol to repel the invasion of our country and what a job they've done. As a result, illegal border crossings last month

were by far the lowest ever recorded, ever. The fact is that last month US border patrol apprehended 8,300 migrants attempting to cross the border illegally. This number is the lowest monthly total since fiscal year 2000, not the lowest number ever. Alright, now it's time for some quick hitters. The Trump administration moved to drop a lawsuit against Idaho, which blocked Idaho from enforcing restrictions on abortions in emergency situations. There has been no explanation from the administration

on why they dropped the suit, although some are speculating that the stance of abortion being left to the states is the reason that the suit was dropped. Notably, despite the administration dropping the suit, the ban is still blocked in emergency situations because of a separate lawsuit filed by St. Luke's Health System,

which is the largest health network in Idaho. The US has suspended the use of military aircrafts for deportation flights. I started using C-17 military planes to deport migrants in January, which were supposed to increase the number of migrants that were able to be deported through just one flight, while also sending a message that illegal immigration wouldn't be tolerated by the administration. However, according to the Wall Street Journal, the military flights ended up not only carrying fewer migrants compared to the ICE air operations, which are civilian flights, but also costing triple the price. And earlier this week, the DOJ announced the arrest of a Guatemalan national and co-conspirators who they say have been running one of the largest US illegal alien smuggling

operations. The DOJ alleges that this group of men trafficked roughly 20,000 people from Guatemala to the United States over five years and that in one instance they held two individuals hostage threatening to kill them if their families did not pay the victims smuggling fees. The DOJ claims the illegal immigrants were recruited in Guatemala. Then Mexican smuggling organizations trafficked the aliens through Mexico and across the US border, where they were placed in stash houses and picked up by the main guy's lieutenants. For an additional fee, the aliens were trafficked throughout the United States.

And the DOJ claims that the main guy who they call Turco worked with associates in Guatemala who solicited $15,000 to $18,000 from individuals in Guatemala in exchange for his smuggling operation. The smuggling ring has allegedly existed for over a decade, and the main leader of the ring has been arrested and charged with conspiracy to bring aliens to the United States, transporting aliens in the United States, harboring aliens in the United States for private financial gain and resulting in death, as well as hostage-taking. The House censured Representative Al Green today for yelling at the president during his

congressional address earlier this week. Ten Democrats joined Republicans in doing so and the final vote was 224 to 198. A censure is basically a reprimand from Congress by the way, there's no formal penalty for it. And a new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, which is a nonpartisan research department created by Congress, shows that Republicans will have no choice but to cut Medicare if they go with the resolution that they've approved.

So the House budget resolution was approved last month, and it requires the Energy and Commerce Committee to find $880 billion in the budget, $880 billion in budget cuts for fiscal years 2025 through 2034. Over that time period, the CBO determined that when taking Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program out of the equation, the committee only has $135 billion to work with. Republican lawmakers have said they will not cut benefits but will instead look to cut waste, fraud, and abuse.

That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. Have a fantastic weekend and I will talk to you on Monday.