UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (4/17/25): Here's EVERYTHING to Know About the Abrego Garcia Situation, PLUS Were Migrants Added to Social Security "Death" List? And More.

Episode Date: April 17, 2025

Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: Trump Administration Threatens Harvard Funding, Tax-Exempt Status, and Certification to Enroll International Students (0:07) DOJ Sues State of Maine Over Transgender Sports Policy (5:53) HHS Kennedy Holds Press Conference About Autism Study (9:29) Judge Finds Probable Cause to Hold Trump Administration in Criminal Contempt of Court; Here's What That Means (12:25) Everything You Should Know About the Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia Deportation Situation (19:47) Quick Hitters: Border Crossings Hit Record Low, U.S. Service Members Killed at Border, Biden Makes First Public Remarks, Man Set Fire to Governor's Home Over Gaza, Fed Talks Economy After Tariffs, Google Violated Antitrust Laws, Pentagon Officials Put on Administrative Leave, Shooting at FSU, California Sues Over Tariffs, Supreme Court to Hear Birthright Citizenship Issue (37:19) Rumor Has It: Were Migrants Added to Social Security "Death" List? Is Trump Considering Deporting American Prisoners to El Salvador? (42:18) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE WEEKLY NEWSLETTER. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

FanDuel Casino's exclusive live dealer studio has your chance at the number one feeling. Winning. Which beats even the 27th best feeling saying I do. Who wants his last parachute? I do. Enjoy the number one feeling. Winning. In an exciting live dealer studio.

Exclusively on FanDuel Casino. Where winning is undefeated. 19 plus and physically located in Ontario. Gambling problem? Call 1-866-531-2600 or visit connectsontario.ca. Please play responsibly. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, April 17th. Let's talk about some news.

Earlier this week, the Trump administration's Joint Task Force said that it will freeze more than $2 billion in federal grants and contracts for Harvard University. The same day, President Trump said he would consider revoking Harvard's tax-exempt status and possibly revoke its ability to accept international students. So let's talk about what's going on here and why this is all happening as well as how it can happen if it can happen. Back in February, the DOJ announced a joint task force to combat anti-Semitism at various universities across the country. Harvard was one of those universities. On April 11th, the Trump administration wrote a letter to

the university outlining a list of quote-unquote demands that the university was to comply with to maintain their financial relationship with the government. Now these demands included things like governance and leadership reforms, merit-based hiring reforms, merit-based admission reforms, international admission reforms, viewpoint diversity in admissions and hiring, the discontinuation of DEI, whistleblower protections, and more. A few days later, which was this past Monday, the president of Harvard wrote a memo in response to that letter from the government. The memo was titled, The Promise of American Higher Education, and in that memo he stated that the

university would not accept the government's proposed agreement to maintain the funding. And he wrote, quote, the administration's prescription goes beyond the power of the federal government. It violates Harvard's First Amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the government's authority under Title six. It threatens our values as a private institution devoted to pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge. No government, regardless of which party is in power, should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and

which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue." Following the release of that memo is when the joint task force announced that it would freeze $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and another $60 million in multi-year contracts. In a statement, the task force said, quote, Harvard's statement today reinforces the troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nation's most prestigious universities and colleges, that federal investment does not come with the responsibility to uphold civil rights laws. The disruption of learning that has always plagued campuses in recent years is unacceptable. The harassment of Jewish students is intolerable. It is time for elite universities to take the problem seriously and commit to meaningful change if they wish

to continue receiving taxpayer support." End quote. Now in addition to the revocation of federal funds, President Trump suggested that Harvard lose its tax-exempt status. Harvard, like most higher education institutions, is a non-profit organization with tax-exempt status, which means it does not have to pay income tax or property tax. Bloomberg News estimated that in 2023, Harvard's tax-exempt benefit amounted to roughly $465 million. Obviously, losing that status would significantly impact Harvard's operating budget, would in turn significantly impact things like research spending and staffing.

Now, the question is, can the president or his administration revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status? This is something only the IRS has the power to do, and the IRS can only do it if an organization violates the tax code. So although Trump can't rescind Harvard's tax-exempt status himself, he could order the IRS to investigate Harvard, and then if Harvard is found to have violated the tax code in some way, that is when the IRS could rescind Harvard's tax benefits.

The third threat that Harvard is facing is one that involves the enrollment of international students. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem sent Harvard a letter requesting records of illegal and violent activities involving Harvard's foreign student visa holders by April 30. In that letter, Noem warned that failure to comply with that request would result in the immediate loss of the university's Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, or SEVP certification. So the Student and Exchange Visitor Program is a

program under ICE, and it allows institutions to issue a Certificate of Eligibility for Non-Immigrant Student Status, also known as a Form I-20, to prospective international students who have been admitted to the school. These prospective international students then use that form to apply for a visa to enter the United States. At Harvard specifically, international students make up more than 27% of the student body. Because this program is run by ICE, which is under the DHS, DHS Secretary Noem is basically saying, ICE will terminate your certification if you do not provide us with the records we have requested. And without that certification, you cannot enroll international students. Importantly, if the DHS did go ahead

and terminate Harvard's SE VP certification, Harvard would certainly sue the administration and we would watch this play out in the courts. Now, some of you have asked why Harvard even receives federal funding if it is a private university. Well, private universities can still receive federal funding. It's just attached to things like student aid programs, research grants, federal partnerships, things like that. So private universities aren't directly funded by the government like public universities are, but they do receive federal funds through various federal programs.

Moving on to the next story, on Wednesday, the Department of Justice announced it would be filing a civil lawsuit against the state of Maine's education department for its failure to abide by President Trump's executive order prohibiting biological men in women's sports. This is the latest update in an ongoing battle between the state of Maine and the Trump administration.

In February, as we know, Trump signed this executive order titled Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports. That order banned transgender athletes from competing on sports teams that do not align with their biological sex, and it also mandated that Title IX, which is the federal law that bans sex discrimination in schools, define sex as the sex assigned to someone at birth. Now if a federally funded entity violates any civil rights laws, including Title IX, and as we just saw in the Harvard story, Title VI, they risk losing their federal funding. So despite Trump's executive order, the state of Maine continued to allow transgender girls

to compete in girls and women's sports. Consequently earlier this year, the Department of Agriculture paused about $250 million in funding for Maine's educational programs. Maine then filed a lawsuit, arguing that these paused funds resulted in it being unable to access funds for nutritional programs and asked that those funds be unfrozen. A federal judge last week sided with Maine and ordered the administration to unfreeze those funds. Now though, the administration is filing its own lawsuit against Maine, arguing that Maine's education department

has violated Title IX by continuing to allow transgender girls to compete in girls and women's sports. Maine, on the other hand, says that its own state laws, such as the Maine Human Rights Act and the state's own interpretation of Title IX, supersede the president's executive order and allow it to continue allowing transgender girls and women to participate in girls and women's sports. So here we're presented with the question of what takes precedence, which takes precedence, right? Is it these these state laws and the state's interpretation of Title IX? Or is it the president's executive order?

Now typically when it comes to federal law versus state law, federal law trumps, right? For lack of a better word, trumps, because we have something known as the supremacy clause which says that if state laws are ever in conflict with federal laws, federal laws apply. Executive orders are a little different. They are not the same as federal laws. So again, this comes down to the question of what takes precedence here? Is it the state laws, the state's interpretation, or is it the president's executive order and the president's interpretation of Title IX.

Now, when the president initially warned Maine that it risked losing funding if it failed to comply with the order, Maine's governor told Trump, we will see you in court. And that is where they have found themselves. In response to the lawsuit that was announced today, Maine's governor said in part, quote, today is the latest expected salvo in an unprecedented campaign to pressure the state of Maine to ignore the Constitution and abandon the rule of law. This matter has never been about school sports or the protection of women and girls, as has been claimed. It is about states' rights and defending the rule of law against a federal government bent on imposing its will

instead of upholding the law. As I have said previously, this is not just about who can compete on the athletic field. This is about whether a president can force compliance with his will without regard for the rule of law that governs our nation. I believe he cannot." Also on Wednesday, switching gears a bit, HHS Secretary Kennedy held his first press conference since assuming his position as HHS Secretary Kennedy held his first press conference since assuming his position as HHS Secretary to talk about a recent autism survey. The press conference

comes on the heels of Kennedy telling President Trump that the HHS department would determine the cause of autism by September. So the survey released this week is called the Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network Survey. The data was taken in 2022 from surveillance sites across 14 states and Puerto Rico. As a result, the CDC determined that 1 in 31 children are diagnosed with autism by the age of 8. Mostly boys, 4.92% of boys were likely to be diagnosed compared to 1.43% of girls.

When we look at past CDC data, in 2010, one in 68 children were diagnosed with autism. In 2016, one in 54 children were diagnosed with autism. In 2020, one in 36 children and now one in 31 children. Kennedy and the CDC disagree as to the causes of the increase in diagnoses. The CDC attributes the uptick in diagnoses to three things. One, access to pediatricians who are trained to screen for autism and who refer

children to be tested for autism as early as possible. Two, insurance coverage. And three, eligibility criteria for access to early intervention services. Kennedy on the other hand believes the uptick in diagnoses is due to environmental factors and not solely because of increased awareness or better diagnoses. Kennedy didn't necessarily state which environmental factors are causing this uptick, but that is what he wants the department to focus its research on in the months ahead. Secretary Kennedy said, quote, autism deserves to be treated as a real public health phenomenon and I would say as an urgent public health crisis.

Now you have critics, right? The Autistic Self Advocacy Network for, says there is no evidence that autism is becoming more common, but rather, we're just getting better at identifying it and widening the diagnostic standards. The Autism Society of America said the CDC data does not signal an epidemic as narratives are claiming, but instead reflects diagnostic progress and an urgent need for policy decisions rooted in science and the immediate needs of the autism community.

Okay, so we are going to take our first break here. I know it's a little earlier than we typically do for a break, but as you'll see throughout this episode, the ad breaks in this episode are a little bit scattered. So as always, I do appreciate when you take the time to listen to the sponsors of each show because ultimately at the end of the day

They are you know, what keeps the lights on in this studio? Okay, so let's take our first break here And I will be right back The wait is over the NBA season is here and fan duel is the place to bet on all the action I'm talking everything from point spreads to money lines to player props You can even pick who's going to win it all. Whether you're betting on a breakout performance or an underdog victory, tip off the season right with North America's number one sportsbook. Just download the app and bet on the NBA all season long.

Please play responsibly. 19 plus and physically located in Ontario. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or the gambling of someone close to you, please go to connectsontario.ca. Welcome back. Continuing with some Wednesday news, a federal judge found probable cause to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt of court. So we'll talk about what this ruling means and what contempt is. And then that'll segue us into the Abrego Garcia case, which is different, but it's related. And I will warn you, in that story, there is a lot to talk about.

It's going to be a bit overwhelming as far as information goes, but we will get through it together. So let's first start by talking about this probable cause ruling. For some background, this probable cause finding from Judge Boasberg stems from those deportation flights that deported suspected Trendy Aragwa gang members to El Salvador last month. To briefly recap, last month Judge Boasberg was conducting a hearing about whether President Trump has lawful authority to deport suspected Trende Aragwa gang members under a law called the Alien Enemies Act. During that hearing, while that hearing

was taking place, the administration sent three planes of suspected gang members to El Salvador. Two of the planes took off just shortly before Judge Boesberg ultimately issued his ruling, prohibiting the administration from deporting suspected gang members. And then one of the three flights took off shortly after that ruling was issued. Boasberg's order basically said no plane can take off and any plane that had already taken off must be returned to the United States. But the Trump administration said, no, no, no, these planes are already in international waters. You don't have jurisdiction over them and therefore you can't

order their return. That was our argument for two of the three flights, right? Because as we just said, one of those three flights did take off after that order had already been issued. So because the third plane was sent despite the order and because none of the three planes were returned in compliance with his order, Boesberg scheduled another hearing to learn more about why the administration defied his order. Now a little crash course on contempt. Contempt of court can be found when someone disobeys a court order or when someone disrupts or interferes with a court proceeding. Contempt can also be indirect or direct

and it can either be criminal or civil. Simply put, direct contempt happens in the presence of the court, whereas indirect contempt happens outside the court. So for example, direct contempt could be failure to show up for court proceedings to which you've been summoned. Indirect contempt would be violating an order of the court.

You're still disobeying the court. You're just doing so outside of the physical courthouse. Now let's talk about the difference between civil and criminal. Civil contempt is intended to compel a party to comply with a court order, whereas criminal contempt is intended to preserve the power of the court through criminal punishment because there is no other remedy available. So let's

illustrate that a bit. In this case, Judge Boasberg found probable cause to hold the administration in criminal contempt because the court has given the administration, quote, ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions, and none of their responses has been satisfactory, end quote. So basically the judge is saying it's criminal because the administration has already been given a chance at this point, there is no other remedy. The judge also wrote, though, that the administration still has an opportunity to avoid contempt by taking custody of the

people it deported and giving them hearings so they can challenge the allegations against them. This is called due process, right? We've talked about this. Due process is something that's afforded to every defendant in the United States, regardless of citizenship status. Boasberg wrote that the court wouldn't need to release any of these people or even transport them back to the United States,

the administration just needs to give them an opportunity to challenge their removability. Boasberg wrote, quote, "'The court will also give defendants an opportunity to propose other methods of coming into compliance which the court will evaluate. In the event that defendants do not choose to purge their contempt, aka make things

right, the court will proceed to identify the individual or individuals responsible for the contumacious conduct by determining whose specific act or omission caused the non-compliance. Boasberg continues saying whoever is responsible would face criminal prosecution. So I want to be clear that the administration has not been convicted of criminal contempt, right? The judge found probable cause to hold the administration in contempt, but that's different. Think of a crime, okay? In order to be arrested, there has to be probable cause that you committed that crime.

You can only be arrested if there is probable cause that you committed that crime. You can only be arrested if there is probable cause that you committed that crime. But in order to be convicted of that crime and sentenced, the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty. So probable cause is step one. Conviction is step two. Same thing here. Probable cause was found, but that doesn't mean the actual conviction has happened, right? Now, to be clear, when it comes to criminal contempt, a finding of probable cause isn't required, right? Some courts have opted to make or require a probable cause finding prior to the finding of contempt, but it doesn't always happen. However, Boasberg decided to do so. We don't know why he didn't elaborate as to why he kind of implied that it was to cover all of his bases in the case of an appeal.

But Boesberg did choose to first find a probable cause before he actually moves on to the conviction phase. In a nutshell, now that Boesberg has found that the administration willfully violated his court order by not returning the deportation flights and not giving the migrants an opportunity to challenge the removal, he's giving the administration an opportunity to make good and voluntarily comply with his original order before he does find contempt. If the administration chooses not to, that is how we may see some Trump administration officials end up in jail. It could happen. It's not to say it will

happen, but when you're talking about criminal contempt, that is certainly a possibility. Keep in mind that this, what we're seeing here, is what the separation of powers principle is all about. Contempt is really the only judicial remedy meant to ensure that no other branch has too much power. So just like the executive branch and the legislative branch have their own remedies to do the same thing, to sort of check the other branches, contempt is the way that the judicial branch checks.

Whether you like a court order or not, you will be held in contempt if you don't abide by it. So that is where this case currently stands, but let's let that segue us into the Abrego Garcia case because Abrego Garcia was actually one of the suspected gang members on one of those deportation flights that was that issue in this case we just talked about.

Okay, I gave you the warning that this Abrego Garcia story is substantive, okay, and it is. So we're actually we're not taking an ad break right now, but we will take a break in in sort of the middle of the story. And I want you to use that as an opportunity to kind of reset because I don't want there to be so much information that you lose track of it, right? So we're gonna go through the first half-ish of this story. We'll take a break and then we'll finish with the second half and hopefully that'll give you

a few minutes to just kind of digest everything we've talked about. So we talked about a Briego Garcia's case at length on Monday in Monday's episode. And I also posted a five and a half minute video about the case to social media this week because there is a ton of Misinformation on both sides. Okay, the left is making a brego garcia out to be the stand-up dad and husband Who has never done anything wrong the right is making him out to be a terrorist murderer rapist So let's talk about this and I'm going to give you even more detail than I did on

Monday and even more detail than I gave in my latest five and a half minute video. Let's start from the beginning. Abrego Garcia came to the United States illegally as a teenager. According to Abrego Garcia's own testimony at a 2019 immigration hearing, which the immigration judge found to be quote quote unquote, consistent, Abrego Garcia's mother was being threatened in El Salvador by a gang known as the Barrio 18. It's probably pronounced differently, okay, in El Salvador, but that's how I'm gonna pronounce it as an American,

so cut me some slack. But his mother was being threatened by this gang in El Salvador due to the success of her business. The gang allegedly wanted money from her. Eventually, the gang allegedly threatened threatened by this gang in El Salvador due to the success of her business. The gang allegedly wanted money from her. Eventually the gang allegedly threatened to kill Abrego Garcia and his brother and rape his sisters if the family did not comply with their demands. So Abrego Garcia's brother was actually the first in the family to come to the United States. He settled in Maryland. In 2011

Abrego Garcia followed. He was 16 at the time and he moved in with his brother in Maryland who had since become a United States citizen. Abrego Garcia ends up taking a job in construction and in 2018 moves in with his United States citizen girlfriend who had two children already from a prior marriage. One year later in 2019, Abrego Garcia was arrested by ICE for the first time. Now there are conflicting reports as to why he was arrested. Okay, one report said he was loitering outside of a Home Depot with two other migrants. Another report says he was picked up related to a murder investigation. In fact, the judge that ultimately denied Abrego Garcia's

bond request and found evidence of his gang affiliation to be quote unquote credible noted the fact that these two reports also contradicted each other. Okay. So let's talk a little bit about those contradicting documents. One of the documents was a gang field interview sheet. It was filled out by the Prince George's County Police Department and detailed how in March 2019, officers approached Abrego Garcia along with three other people for loitering at a Home Depot parking lot.

Abrego Garcia said in a court filing that he was there looking for day labor work. Police noted in that report that he was wearing a Chicago Bulls hat and a hoodie with rolls of money covering the eyes, ears, and mouths of the presidents, which the officer said was an indication of see no evil, hear no evil, and say no evil, which is quote, indicative of the Hispanic gang culture, end quote. The officer also noted that quote, wearing the Chicago Bulls hat represents that they are a member in good standing with the MS-13. End quote. The officer added that he consulted with a quote unquote reliable confidential source

who quote, advised that Abrego Garcia is the rank of Chicao with the moniker of Chile in the gang. According to the DOJ, a Chicao is a lowlevel member of MS-13. The reliable confidential source cited to in the report also said something about Abrego Garcia belonging to the Long Island chapter of the gang, but Abrego Garcia has never lived in New York. So that is one discrepancy. Now before we get to the second document, we have to note too that the police

officer, I told you I was going to give you all the details, okay, because I want you to have all the facts on all sides, you know, from all angles. So we also have to note that the police officer that filled out the report for Prince George's County Police Department was later found to be uncredible and deemed unfit to testify in state court in a different case after he had criminal charges filed against him for sharing confidential information about a police investigation with a commercial sex worker who he was paying for sexual acts in December 2018. The second document presented at a Rego Garcia's 2019 bond hearing was one filled out by DHS,

which said that police identified two men in 2019, one of whom was Abrego Garcia, as having been detained in a murder investigation. Abrego Garcia denied the allegation he was never charged. One page of that DHS document says Abrego Garcia did not claim a fear of returning to his country, but another page of that same document says he did claim a fear of returning to his country, but another page of that same document says he did claim a fear of returning to his country. The DHS document also noted that Abrego-Garcia claimed he had sufficient evidence to refute the gang allegation, including character references and his lack of a criminal record.

So those are the two documents that were presented when Abrego-Garcia was initially arrested in 2019 and asked to be released on bond. After reviewing those two documents, the immigration judge denied Abrego Garcia's request for bond because he found the allegations within the county police report to be credible. Well, not the clothing part of the testimony, but the other parts. Okay, so the judge wrote, quote, Although the court is reluctant to give evidentiary weight to the respondent's clothing as an indication of gang affiliation, the fact that a past proven and reliable source of information

verified the respondent's gang membership, rank, and gang name is sufficient to support that the respondent is a gang member and that the respondent has failed to present evidence to rebut that assertion." End quote. Now, just for clarity sake, a credible witness is a witness who comes across as competent and worthy of the belief

due to their experience, knowledge, training, and sense of honesty that deems their statement worthy of being accepted as true. So in this case, the judge found that the informant had told the truth in past cases, so he was also credible for Abrego Garcia's case. But let's elaborate even more on those gang accusations because this is where a lot of the public confusion lies. Abrego Garcia's attorney says he has no affiliation with MS-13 and there is no proof of his affiliation. The Trump administration, on the other hand, says Abrego Garcia is a quote, foreign terrorist

and MS-13 gang member. Adding to that confusion are the courts themselves, okay? For example, the 2019 court order that denied Abrego Garcia's bond specifically references quote-unquote credible testimony about Abrego Garcia's gang name, gang rank, and gang affiliation. However, in the most recent court order requiring Abrego Garcia to be returned to the United States, this order was just issued a couple of weeks ago, right? It paints a different story. That order says that in 2019 the DHS relied principally on a singular unsubstantiated allegation that Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13. And in the

footnote of that ruling the judge wrote, quote, the quote-unquote evidence against Abrego Garcia consisted of nothing more than his Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie and a vague uncorroborated allegation from a confidential informant claiming he belonged to MS-13's Western Click in New York, a place he has never lived." End quote. So the facts are being painted differently, depending on whose ruling you want to read and you want to believe. Okay. But regardless, Abrego Garcia was denied bond in 2019 based on those reports from the County Police Department and the DHS. He ended up appealing that decision, denying his bond and the appellate court affirmed it, meaning Abrego Garcia would not receive bond

and he would have to remain in detention. Months later, Abrego Garcia sought what's called a withholding of removal, which would prevent him from being deported back to El Salvador due to a risk of persecution. Based on his testimony about what his family had experienced from the gang back home, the withholding of removal was granted. Note that in order to be granted a withholding of removal was granted. Note that in order to be granted a

withholding of removal, the DHS had to have decided that Abrego Garcia was not a danger to the security of the United States. So back in 2019, he was deemed to not have been a danger to the United States, okay? Also keep in mind that with this withholding of removal order, Abrego Garcia could have been deported to any other country. Assuming any other country would have accepted him, he just could not be sent to El Salvador. So that is why the administration is not contesting the fact that Abrego Garcia was improperly deported to El Salvador.

The court literally prohibited his removal to El Salvador specifically, and that makes his deportation to El Salvador impermissible. I think maybe now the administration is actually saying that Abrego Garcia wasn't illegally deported, but originally the administration did admit to the court that it made a mistake and it should not have happened. So, in 2019, Abrego Garcia ultimately gets this withholding of removal and work authorization from the DHS. He continues working in the United States, he gets married to his United States citizen girlfriend and he has a kid.

Last month, he is arrested by ICE and deported to El Salvador as a suspected gang member. His attorney files a lawsuit on his behalf arguing that he was illegally deported for the reasons that we just went over. Okay? The Trump administration though argues that yes the deportation was a mistake but because he has ties to MS-13 he poses a threat to the public in the United States and therefore he should not be allowed to return. The court asks the administration for additional evidence of ties to MS-13 outside of what the immigration court received in 2019, and the administration cannot provide anything else. Consequently, the judge orders the administration to, quote, facilitate and effectuate Abrego Garcia's return to the United States. Now, like I said, I know this is an odd time for a break, okay, but the layout of the episode requires a break here.

I want you to take this time to digest what we just talked about so that we can pick up the conversation when we come back. In the meantime, we're going to hear from some of the sponsors that make this show possible. You might even find yourself some good discounts during the break too. So stay alert and we will be right back. Actuaries are truly global. Wherever there's risk to manage, they use their math skills to solve real world problems. The Society of Actuaries has the designation for any destination.

Welcome back. Before we took a break, we were talking about the recent ruling out of the district court, which said that the administration had to, quote and effectuate a brego-garcia's return to the United States after that ruling the administration goes to the Supreme Court and on Thursday so a week ago the Supreme Court says nine to zero decision that the lower court's order quote properly requires the government to facilitate a brego-garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he

not been improperly sent to El Salvador. End quote. The court continues and says, quote, the intended scope of the term effectuate in the district court's order is however unclear and may exceed the district court's authority. The district court should clarify its directive with due regard for the deference owed to the executive branch in the conduct of foreign affairs." In other words, the administration has to facilitate the release of Abrego Garcia from El Salvador custody, but the district court needs to elaborate as to what effectuate means because the president has exclusive Article 2 foreign power and the courts cannot dictate how he handles his foreign relations. So that ruling was released on Thursday. That same day, the

judge who originally ordered Abrego Garcia to be returned clarified her ruling in compliance with the Supreme Court's directive and said that the administration was to take all available steps to facilitate Abrego-Garcia's return. Well, that then caused a fight over the meaning of the word facilitate. The Trump administration believes facilitate cannot mean anything more than allowing Abrego Garcia's entry back into the United States if El Salvador agrees to release him because anything more than that would be an encroachment on the president's exclusive article two powers. So Tuesday rolls around it's been about five days since the judge clarified her directive in compliance with the Supreme Court's order.

Abrego-Garcia still is not back in the United States. In fact, on Monday, the president of El Salvador met with President Trump in the Oval Office and said very clearly he would not be sending Abrego-Garcia back to the United States. So on Tuesday, the judge holds another hearing to figure out why the administration has not taken all available steps to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return in compliance with her directive. During that hearing, the judge voiced frustration at the DOJ's failure to act, stating that the government had done nothing to bring Abrego Garcia home. She said that the actions of the DOJ and DHS are unacceptable and that she would be requiring

four Trump administration officials to testify as to what has been done to comply with the court's order and facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia. So that is where the case stands as of now. The Supreme Court could very well have to get involved again soon, but that's where we're at right now. Now I want to talk about some additional developments outside of the courtrooms. On Wednesday, the administration released court documents from Maryland that show Abrego Garcia's wife filed for a protection order against him in 2021. In those documents, Abrego Garcia's wife wrote that on May 4th, 2021, Abrego Garcia slapped her, hit her with an object, detained her against her

will, and punched and scratched her eye, causing her to bleed. She said when she told Abrego Garcia that she needed to go to a store, he quote, got angry, started yelling again to the point that he ripped her shorts and shirt off. End quote. According to those documents, she ran to the bathroom, he ran behind her, and he grabbed her arm.

She then writes quote, at this point, I am afraid to be close to him. I have multiple photos and videos of how violent he can be. End quote. In those same documents, she noted past incidents, both in 2020. In one of those instances, Abrego Garcia allegedly hit her with his work boot, and in the other, he allegedly hit her in the eye. According to state records, she did obtain a temporary protective order against him in May of 2021, which required him to have no contact with her and stay away from their shared home. That protective order was dismissed just one month later after Abrego Garcia's wife failed to appear in court. After these documents came to light this week, Abrego Garcia's wife released a statement through her attorney and said this,

quote, After surviving domestic violence in a previous relationship, I acted out of caution after a disagreement with Kilmar by seeking a protective order in case things escalated. We were able to work through this situation privately as a family, including by going to counseling. Kilmar has always been a loving partner and father, and I will continue to stand by him and demand justice for him. Our marriage only grows stronger in the years that followed. No one is perfect and no marriage is perfect, but that is not a justification for ICE's action of abducting him and deporting him to a country where he was supposed to be protected from removal. Kilmar has always been a loving partner and father and I will continue to stand by him and

demand justice for him." End quote. So that was his wife's response to the release of the new documents. ABC News obtained additional documents submitted to a Maryland court in August 2018 by a man who claimed to be the father of Abrego Garcia's wife's two children from her previous marriage. The man filed a five-page motion for an emergency hearing in 2018 saying he feared for his children's lives in part, quote, because she is dating a gang member and has attempted self-harm. End quote. The man did not include the name of the alleged gang member, so it is unclear if he was referring to Abrego Garcia or someone else. We know that Abrego Garcia started dating his now wife in 2018.

So that is everything we know about the Abrego Garcia situation, okay? As you can see, it is certainly not cut and dry. It is very nuanced. The left is making it out to be one thing, the right is making it out to be another. They're both making it out to be this simple, done end of story, closed, you know, open and closed case.

The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle, so please keep that in mind. Okay, let's take a breath. After that overload of information, let's move on to some quick hitters. We actually have quite a few today. Last month, illegal border crossings reached a record low with 7,181 migrants apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol and another 3,836 by the Office of Field Operations. This is a 95% decrease from last March, which had nearly 190,000 total encounters. This is the second record-breaking month in a row as February saw just under 12,000 encounters. Two service members were tragically killed in a car accident near the U.S.-Mexico border this week with another service member in serious condition. The cause of the accident is under

investigation. Roughly 10,000 service members have been recently deployed to the U.S.-Mexico border to crack down on immigration. On Tuesday, former President Biden delivered his first major public remarks since leaving office. Speaking at the 2025 Conference of Advocates, Counselors, and Representatives for the Disabled in Chicago, Biden criticized the Trump administration's handling of the Social Security Administration. He said, quote, this new administration has done so much damage, it's kind of breathtaking, it could happen that soon." Biden has attended other events since leaving office but this marked his first public address. Cody Balmer, the man accused of setting Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro's home on fire, told 9-1-1 reporters he targeted Governor Shapiro because of his views on the war in Gaza.

The newly released warrant says that Balmer called 911 the morning after the fire and said Governor Shapiro needs to know that he quote, will not take part in his plans for what he wants to do to the Palestinian people and that he needed to quote, stop having my friends killed. End quote. Fed Chair Jerome Powell warned the public this week that tariffs will interfere with the Fed's dual mandate of ensuring price stability and the maximum sustainable amount of employment. Powell also said tariffs were larger than expected and that they would lead to a rise in inflation, but that more data was needed to understand how the tariffs would affect the economy in the long term. He also said the Fed would refrain from taking

action until they have a more complete picture of the effects. A federal court ruled today that Google violated US antitrust laws by monopolizing the online advertising and ad tech markets. The judge found that Google was able to establish and protect its monopoly power in these two markets by tying its ad server and publisher ad exchange together. This decision could force Google to sell off part of its online ad business, but we will have to wait for a decision from the judge on that.

Three Pentagon employees have been placed on administrative leave amid an investigation into unauthorized leaks of sensitive information. Colin Carroll, who served as chief of staff to Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg, followed the earlier suspensions of Dan Caldwell and Darren Selnick, both close advisors to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The probe is apparently examining recent unauthorized disclosures of national security information. Today a tragic shooting at Florida State University left two people dead and six others injured. Shots were first fired around 12.01 p.m. today.

The school immediately went under lockdown. Apparently, local police had notified the university that they would be conducting training exercises today between noon and 8 p.m. so they should be prepared for the sound of gunshots and other loud noises. That notice led to some confusion when the shooter first started firing because some assumed it was part of this police training. Luckily though, like I said, the school immediately went under lockdown. The shooter has been identified as 20-year-old Phoenix Eichner, an FSU student and the son of a Leon County Sheriff's Deputy.

He allegedly used an old service weapon that belonged to his mom, who is a school resource deputy for a Tallahassee middle school. Governor Newsom of California and California's Attorney General announced a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging the legality of the newly imposed tariffs that the state argues are unconstitutional and economically harmful. The lawsuit argues that Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to levy these tariffs exceeds presidential presidential authority, and bypasses congressional approval. Governor Newsom and California's attorney general assert that these tariffs

threaten California's economy, particularly its agriculture and technology sectors, by increasing costs for businesses and consumers. And finally, the Supreme Court in a brief order today said it would hear oral arguments next month on whether the Trump administration can take steps to enforce its proposal to end birthright citizenship while this litigation plays out. This is one of those cases where the lower court judge issued a nationwide injunction, something the administration says exceeds the court's authority. So once the Supreme Court hears arguments in this case, it'll decide whether the nationwide injunction

can remain in place while the lawsuit plays out or instead whether the judge has to narrow the scope of the injunction. And now it's time for Rumor Has It, my weekly segment where I either confirm, dispel, or add context to recent rumors submitted by all of you. Rumor has it that 6,300 migrants were moved to a social security death list. This is true, let's add some context. The Social Security Administration has this thing called the Death Master File, or at least it was called the Death Master File.

In recent days, the name has been changed to the Ineligibility Masters List. This list was originally created to keep track of those that were issued Social security numbers that have since died. Its purpose is to prevent improper payments or benefits from going out to people who are dead. But in recent days, its purpose has changed a bit. As the new name implies, it is a list of those that are ineligible for social security benefits, whether that's because they're dead or they, quote, pose a national security threat or because they're quote wanted by federal law enforcement agencies. End quote. A White House official confirmed that the immigrants who were transferred to the ineligible master file were found by the DHS

to be on the terrorist watch list or to have FBI criminal records. And the spokesperson also said that all of them entered the United States illegally during the Biden administration. Notably, the White House official did not provide proof of those claims. A White House spokesperson said moving these individuals to the ineligible master file would remove the monetary incentive for illegal aliens to come and stay in the United States and will provide an incentive for them to self-deport. And this is because once you're on this list your Social Security number or tax identification number is revoked and you are unable to collect benefits. Not only are you unable to collect benefits but it can make other financial matters difficult and

result in the loss of the ability to work in some cases. Rumor has it that President Trump is considering sending American prisoners to El Salvador. This is also true, but again, let's add some context. In Monday's meeting with El Salvador's president, President Trump referred to the idea of sending American criminals to prisons in El Salvador and said, quote, home groans are next, the home groans. You gotta build about five more places,

it's not big enough, end quote. This is also something President Trump has talked about in the past as well. During Tuesday's press briefing, Press Secretary Caroline Levitt was asked if she could explain the legal basis to which the United States could send US citizens to prisons in El Salvador. She responded that the administration is looking into it and when there is more to share she would share it. Another reporter asked Levitt a similar question to which she responded that the president would only consider this if legal for Americans who are the most violent, egregious

repeat offenders of crime who, quote, nobody in this room wants living in their communities. End quote. Legally speaking, there seems to be no way the administration would be able to do this, except in the case of naturalized citizens. There is a loophole there that may allow it in rare circumstances, but generally speaking, there really is no lawful way to deport American citizens to other countries. It is true though that the administration has said it's something they are looking into. That is what I have for you today. Have a fantastic weekend. And to be quite honest with you, I do not know if I'm going to do a five minute episode

for tomorrow. This episode is already going out later than expected. I have a crazy jam-packed day tomorrow. I don't know if I'll be able to make it work. If I can, I will. But just, you know, fair warning, I might not be able to. Have a fantastic weekend, and if I don't talk to you tomorrow, I will talk to you again on Monday.