UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (4/22/25): COVID.gov Gets New 'Lab Leak' Look, Abrego Garcia Case Updates, Supreme Court to Decide If Parents Can Opt Children Out of LGBTQ Classroom Instruction, and More.

Episode Date: April 22, 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: Supreme Court Acts on Alien Enemies Act; More Action to Come (0:33) Supreme Court to Decide Whether Mandatory Insurance Coverage for Certain Preventative Services Can Stand (8:38) Supreme Court to Decide Whether Parents Can Opt Children Out of Classroom LGBTQ+ Classroom Instruction (12:52) Abrego Garcia Case Updates: Senator Visits El Salvador, DHS Releases Traffic Stop Report, President Trump Shares Picture of Tattoos (15:56) Harvard Sues Administration; NY Times Reports Administration Mistakenly Sent Demand Letter (22:53) Four Anonymous Sources Say Hegseth Texted Yemen Strike Plans to Family Group Chat on Signal (25:40) COVID.gov Gets New 'Lab Leak' Look (28:05) Quick Hitters: HHS to Do Away With Eight Remaining Artificial Food Dyes, FTC Sues Uber Over UberOne Membership, Education Dept. to Resume Loan Collection, Walgreen to Settle Opioid Lawsuit, Pope Francis Dies (32:31) Critical Thinking Segment (35:51) 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

Okay, flights on Air Canada. How about Prague? Ooh, Paris. Those gardens. Gardens. Um, Amsterdam. Tulip Festival. I see your festival and raise you a carnival in Venice. Or Bermuda has carnaval. Ooh, colorful. You want colorful. Thailand. Lantern Festival. Boom. Book it. Um, how did we get to Thailand from Prague?

Oh, right. Prague. Oh, boy. Choose from a world of destinations. If you can. Air Canada, nice travels. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Tuesday, April 22nd.

Let's talk about some news. I appreciate you waiting an extra day for today's episode. Sunday was actually my birthday. So typically when I prep for Monday's episode, I put in a little bit of work on Sundays too, but this Sunday, you know, I decided to give myself the day off and enjoy, which unfortunately meant that today's episode

would be delayed, but let's not delay it any further. Let's get into today's stories. Starting off with an update out of the Supreme Court in regard to the alien enemies act and the Trump Administration's ability to use the act for purposes of deporting suspected Trendy Aragawa gang members We've talked about this case a lot and this is not the second time that it's been before the Supreme Court So I feel as if it's getting a bit confusing for a lot of people, but I want to try to break it down so we're all on the same page as far as what is going on and what this particular ruling out of the Supreme Court means for the future of the case. The Alien Enemies Act

case, just to recap briefly, started when President Trump signed a proclamation that invoked this centuries-old law called the Alien Enemies Act for purposes of deporting suspected gang members. Trendy Aragwa gang members were specifically, okay? So the Alien Enemies Act is a 1798 law that specifically allows the president to deport or detain citizens from an enemy nation during either an invasion or predatory incursion. This war has only been invoked three times since its enactment, once during the War of 1812, once during World War I, and once during World War II. To justify the most recent invocation, President Trump cited to

this invasion by Trende Aragua gang members. Trende Aragua is a Venezuelan gang. On that basis, Trump ordered Venezuelan citizens who are over the age of 14 and associated with the gang to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. Following that proclamation though, a group of suspected gang members that were at risk of being deported filed a lawsuit challenging their removal on the basis that one, the president exceeded his authority in invoking the law because there hasn't been an invasion and because the United States is not at war with Venezuela, and two, because the suspected gang members were not given notice and an opportunity to challenge their

removal, which is afforded to everyone, by the way. Whether you are a citizen of the United States or not, you are given what's called due process. And if this sounds familiar, it's because just two weeks ago, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that said all detainees are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. But we'll talk about that more in a minute. So this Alien Enemies Act lawsuit was originally filed back in February, and almost immediately

the Trump administration is told by the judge that it cannot deport citizens under this Alien Enemies Act while this litigation is playing out. Keep in mind, the day that order was issued, the administration sent three flights of suspected gang members to El Salvador. Two flights right before the order was issued, one flight right after. But because the district court judge barred the administration from deporting any other suspected gang members, the administration took that order to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals kept the order in place. So the administration

then went to the Supreme Court and that is the ruling we got a couple of weeks ago in which the justices agreed to put the district court's order on hold, but clarified that 1. The detainees must receive notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal, and 2. Any challenges to removal must be brought as a habeas challenge, which is a particular type of legal challenge, and the challenge must be brought in the state in which the detainee is being detained. In this case, many of the suspected gang members were being detained in Texas or are being detained in Texas. So in a nutshell, the Supreme Court said

the administration can continue deporting suspected gang members during the course of this lawsuit, but it must comply with due process. Following that Supreme Court ruling, the Venezuelan detainees did exactly what the Supreme Court ruling instructed them to do. They filed a habeas challenge in Texas and asked a federal judge in Texas to temporarily block the removal of all Venezuelan men in immigration custody. In response to that challenge, the Trump administration tells the judge, hey look we won't try to remove the men that are individually named in this complaint while their habeas challenges

are pending. Now, the reason the administration did this is because it didn't want the court to issue a broad injunction. So rather than having the court say, okay administration, you cannot deport anyone currently detained while this habeas challenge is pending, the administration simply agreed to not deport the specific men that brought the challenge. Because of this offer from the administration, the judge rejected the men's broad request. Specifically, the

judge said that in the in light of the Supreme Court's recent ruling about due process and the Trump administration's representations to the court about not trying to deport any of the men that have filed a habeas challenge, the broader group of detainees is likely not facing an imminent threat of removal and therefore they do not need an order prohibiting their removal. So what do the attorneys for the detainees do? They go to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. But before the Fifth Circuit could issue a ruling, the attorneys actually file an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court.

And the reason it was an emergency is because according to the attorneys for the detainees, individuals in custody in Texas have since received notification that their removal could be imminent, which, as the attorneys point out, is in direct violation of the Supreme Court's recent ruling, and because the notices that were given to these detainees were in English, which at least some of the Spanish-speaking detainees could not understand.

Notably, before the Trump administration even filed a response to that emergency appeal, the justices issued an order. In a 5-2 decision just after midnight on Saturday, the justices told the administration they cannot deport any of the detainees in Texas for the time being or until further order by the court. The justices noted that this case is pending before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and that once the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issues a ruling, then the Trump administration can file their response to the migrants' emergency appeal to the Supreme Court,

and at that point the justices will issue yet another ruling on the matter. But in the meantime, the government is not to deport any of the Texas detainees. So that Supreme Court ruling came just after midnight this past Saturday. Very shortly after that, so on about Saturday afternoon, the Fifth Circuit ruled on the issue. They denied the detainees request. So as the Supreme Court instructed the government to do, once the Fifth Circuit ruled on the matter, the attorney for the Trump administration filed the response to the detainees emergency appeal. And the Trump administration essentially argued

that the migrants appeal was fatally premature, that the justices should send it back to the district court and give the district court a chance to rule on the emergency issues first since he has yet to do so. Because remember the attorneys for the migrants just went straight to the Supreme Court essentially. The district court judge did not have time to rule on these more imminent and pressing issues. So now that the administration has filed its

response to the appeal, we should get another decision from the justices in the coming days or weeks. It's unclear when we'll get it, but it'll likely be relatively soon. So I guess what I want to make clear here is that a single case can go before the Supreme Court multiple times if multiple issues present themselves, right? Now, that's not to say that the Supreme Court will agree to hear all of the issues that arise in one particular case, but in a case like this one where it's such a hot issue, it's such a rare use of the law, and just such a unique case in general, the justices are more likely to rule on whatever issue comes their way. So that is why we have seen this case go before the Supreme Court multiple times now, and it's not done. It's not done. The Supreme Court will likely get a couple more stabs at this case. So once we have

another update from the Supreme Court, I will let you know, but for now, let's move on to another Supreme Court case. Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to Affordable Care Act preventative care coverage. Why do you care? I will tell you. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs in this case, your insurance company will not be required

to cover certain preventative services and medications. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the government, preventative services and medications will remain covered. So let's back up a little bit. Under the HHS, there is an independent panel of 16 experts called the US Preventative Services Task Force. Each expert serves a four-year term and is chosen by the HHS Secretary.

This task force determines which preventative services insurers must cover. Some of these services include contraception, cancer screening, HPV vaccines, and as of 2019, an HIV prevention medication called PrEP. When PrEP was added as a mandatory preventative care service, four individuals and two small businesses sued the Biden administration with religious objections. So the lead plaintiff is Braidwood Management. It's a Christian-owned business that provides health insurance to its 70 employees. Braidwood argues that this insurance requirement encourages homosexual behavior, intravenous

drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and a woman. And these things go against their religion. The lawsuit, though, was not formatted as a violation of free exercise of religion, but rather was formatted as a challenge to the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. So the Appointments Clause tells us how certain government officials are to be appointed to their positions. The Appointments Clause requires the President to appoint and the Senate to confirm principal

officers of the United States. Now we have principal officers and we have inferior officers. Inferior officers can instead just be appointed by either the president alone, don't necessarily need Senate confirmation, or they can be appointed by the heads of departments like the HHS secretary. So naturally this case is going to come down to the question of are these task force members inferior officers or principal officers? If they are inferior, their appointments can stand because they were appointed by the HHS secretary.

If they're principal officers, their positions are constitutionally invalid because they were not appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. So what's the difference between inferior and principal officers? In 1997, the Supreme Court held that an inferior officer is one whose work is directed and supervised at some level by others who were appointed by presidential nomination with the advice and consent of the Senate. So this definition would presumably mean that the task force members in question here are inferior officers because they're directed and supervised at some level by the HHS secretary

who was appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. However, that same 1997 case said that there is no firm test or exclusive criteria for distinguishing between a principal officer and an inferior officer for appointments clause purposes. A principal officer typically has more authority, more discretion, and more power than an inferior officer. But as I stated, the precedent is murky. An article in the Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy put it like this. It said, modern appointments clause jurisprudence is at best confusing and at worst incoherent.

In short, again, this case boils down to the separation of powers, the power of the Preventative Services Task Force, and whether the task force members are considered to be inferior or principal officers. During arguments yesterday, it did seem as if the justices will side with the government and uphold the appointments of the task force members, which would mean that the Preventative Services recommendations and requirements would stand and insurance companies would still have to cover those services. We should have that decision within the next month or two so I will keep you

updated once that is released. Let's take our first break here. When we come back we'll talk about one more Supreme Court case, some updates in the Abrego Garcia case, and more. Welcome back. Okay one more Supreme Court update. We'll make this one relatively quick. The court today heard arguments in a case dealing with religion and public schools. The case centers around the argument that requiring children to participate in instruction that includes LGBTQ plus themes violates the religious beliefs of parents and therefore violates the parents' First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. To be clear, the justices will have to decide whether parents should be able to opt their children out of classroom instruction on issues that go against their religion. So in this case, a county outside Washington, DC, it's called Montgomery County, approved various books for its language arts curriculum that featured LGBTQ plus characters.

As examples, one book tells the story of a puppy that gets lost during a pride parade. Another book tells the story of a girl who attended her uncle's same sex wedding. After approving those books for the curriculum, the county also announced that it would not allow parents to opt to have their children excused from instruction involving these books. This prompted a group of Muslims, Catholics, and Ukrainian Orthodox parents to sue the county. They argued that the refusal to give them the option to opt their children out of the instruction violated their constitutional right to freely exercise their religion, specifically their ability to instruct

their own children on issues of gender and sexuality according to their faith and to control when and how these issues are introduced to their children. The county on the other hand, argues that under the Constitution and prior Supreme Court cases, interpreting the free exercise clause, the parents have to show that either they or their children are being coerced to change their religious beliefs or practice in order to claim a constitutional violation. If they cannot prove that either they or their children are being coerced to change their religious beliefs or practice, then no constitutional violation exists, according to the county. The county asserts that

the Supreme Court has never held that when parents opt to send their children to public schools, their children's exposure to material to which the parents have religious objections is the kind of coercion needed to establish a claim under the free exercise clause, and the Supreme Court should not hold that now. So that's the debate in this case. Again, the question boils down to whether public schools burden parents religious exercise when they force elementary school students to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality

against their parents' religious convictions and without notice or an opportunity to opt out. Those arguments did take place this morning, so I unfortunately don't have an update for you as to how the justices were feeling on this issue, but I can certainly update you in Thursday's episode. For this next story, we have a few updates to cover in the Abrego Garcia deportation case.

First, the senator's visit to El Salvador. So Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland visited Abrego Garcia in El Salvador on Thursday. This garnered support from most people on the left and criticism from most people on the right. According to Van Hollen, the government of El Salvador tried, quote, really hard to prevent him from speaking with Abrego Garcia by turning down multiple prior requests, but ultimately realized that was not a good look and eventually allowed them to meet. Van Hollen said the primary purpose of the visit was to make sure Abrego Garcia was still

alive and check on his health. Following the visit and upon arriving back in Maryland, Van Hollen held a news conference where he announced that Abrego Garcia was placed in a cell with about 25 other prisoners at CCOT, a terrorism confinement center in El Salvador. According to Van Hollen, Abrego Garcia said he wasn't afraid of the other prisoners in his immediate cell, but that he was traumatized by being at the prison and fearful of many of the prisoners in other cell blocks who called out to him and taunted him in various ways.

Notably, Abrego Garcia was moved from that terrorism confinement center to a quote-unquote better detention facility eight days before Van Hollen's visit. However, as Van Hollen pointed out, Abrego Garcia still has quote, no access to any news from the outside world and no ability to communicate with anybody in the outside world, end quote. The state department said in a court filing yesterday

that according to the El Salvador government, Abrego Garcia is now in quote, good conditions and in an excellent state of health, end quote. In a separate court filing, the government noted that Abrego-Garcia now has his own room with a bed and furniture rather than a prison cell. The second update is this new DHS report. So on Friday, the DHS investigations combined intelligence unit released an investigative report detailing a 2022 traffic stop encounter with Abrego Garcia which reportedly caused law enforcement officers to believe that Abrego Garcia might be involved

with human trafficking. According to the report, Abrego Garcia was initially stopped for speeding but law enforcement noted that he was in the vehicle with eight other people and no luggage Abrego Garcia reportedly told the officer that he had been driving for three days to bring the passengers from Texas to Maryland For construction work when the officers asked for their addresses all eight passengers repeated the same address as Abrego Garcia When questioned by the officer Abrego Garcia appeared to quote pretend that he could speak less English than he was able to, end quote. Though the officer collected the names of all of the individuals that were in the vehicle, he was unable to read their handwriting to identify them. Notably,

there was no incident report created for this encounter because Abrego Garcia was issued a verbal warning for speeding and a warning citation for driving with an expired license. When the DHS released the report, the assistant secretary of the DHS said, quote, Kilmar Abrego-Garcia is an MS-13 gang member, illegal alien from El Salvador and suspected human trafficker. The facts speak for themselves and they wreak of human trafficking. The media's sympathetic narrative about this criminal illegal gang member has completely fallen apart. We hear far too much about the gang members and criminals' false sob stories and not enough about their victims."

Abrego Garcia's wife responded to this DHS report with her own statement. She said, "...Kilmar worked in construction and sometimes transported groups of workers between job sites, so it's entirely plausible he would have been pulled over while driving with others in the vehicle. End quote. His wife emphasized that Abrego Garcia was never charged with any crime or cited for any wrongdoing. Finally, the third update in this case, this one actually isn't so much of an update, more so a lot of you just asked me to talk about it, and that is Abrego Garcia's tattoos. On Friday, one day after Senator Van Hollen visited Abrego Garcia and the same day that the DHS released that 2022 investigative report, President Trump shared a picture of Abrego

Garcia's knuckles to Truth Social. And this picture has sparked debate about whether Abrego Garcia's knuckle tattoos link him to the MS-13 gang. Trump wrote alongside this picture, quote, This is the hand of the man that the Democrats feel should be brought back to the United States because he is such a fine and innocent person. They said he is not a member of MS-13, even though he's got MS-13 tattooed on his knuckles, And two highly respected courts found that he was a member of MS-13, beat up his wife, et cetera. I was elected to take bad people out of the United States, among other things, I must be allowed to do my job,

make America great again." End quote. Now, to paint the picture for you, that the picture of Abrego Garcia's knuckles, okay? There's one tattoo on each of Abrego Garcia's four knuckles that are shown in the picture. The tattoo on his index finger is a marijuana leaf. The tattoo on his middle finger is a smiley face

with two Xs for the eyes. The tattoo on his ring finger is a cross and the tattoo on his pinky finger is a skull. And then above each tattoo in this picture that the White House shared, it appears as if the White House Photoshopped an M on the index finger, an S on the middle finger, a one on the ring finger, and a three on the pinky finger,

which spells out MS-13. So to be clear, the tattoos on the knuckles are real, okay? Obrego Garcia does have these tattoos on his knuckles. The text in the picture that spells out MS-13 was photoshopped. The administration apparently included the letters and numbers MS-13 in the picture because it says that the tattoos actually symbolize MS-13. In other words, the marijuana leaf stands for M

because M is the first letter of marijuana. The smiley face stands for S because S is the first letter of smiley. They face stands for S because S is the first letter of smiley. The cross stands for one and the skull stands for three. On the other side of the argument, a source who works with ICE told the New York Post that a 13 tattoo, an explicit 13 tattoo, would have been mandatory for Abrego Garcia

if he became a member of the gang while living in the United States, and that Abrego Garcia does not have a 13 tattoo, at least not that officials are aware of. Other sources have similarly said that MS-13 gang members have very clear affiliation tattoos like MS or 13, not these vague symbol tattoos like Abrego Garcia has. So are these tattoos indicative of MS-13 membership? We can't say for sure one way or the other, but that is what people are saying on both sides of this debate.

I do wanna be clear though, if you look at the picture, I do have a couple of links in the sources section, you will very clearly see the tattoos are real, they exist, okay? The MS-13 text on the picture is what was Photoshopped. Okay, let's talk about Harvard. Last time we spoke, Attorney General Pam Bondi had announced that the administration was going to sue Harvard over its failure to comply with Title IX of the Civil Rights Act as well as Trump's executive order titled

Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports. Leading up to that announcement though, the administration had said it was going to revoke Harvard's federal funding unless it complied with certain demands. And those demands came by way of a letter, which the New York Times is now reporting was actually a mistake and should have never been sent. Some of the demands in that letter were as follows. Eliminate all hiring preferences based on race, gender, religion, etc. Enforce anti-plagiarism policies and review faculty credentials. Sub submit hiring data to the government through 2028, end admissions preferences based on race, color, national origin, etc., screen out students hostile to U.S. values or supportive of terrorism or anti-Semitism, reform or replace units lacking diversity in all perspectives, investigate faculty actions post-October 7,

2023, enforce rules without ideological bias, immediately shut down all DEI efforts, and more. All demands were to be met by August 2025, and the letter was signed by the commissioner of the Federal Acquisition of General Services Administration, the Acting General Counsel of the HHS, and the Acting General Counsel of the Education Department, all three of whom are members of the Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, which was set up by the Trump

administration shortly after President Trump's inauguration. According to the New York Times, two people, quote, familiar with the matter, say that while the letter was authentic, it was unauthorized. Per the outlet, there were differing accounts inside the administration of how the letter had been mishandled Quote some people at the White House believed it had been sent prematurely Others in the administration thought it had had been meant to be circulated among the task force members rather than rather than sent to Harvard end-quote

Apparently after Harvard responded to the letter publicly saying it would not comply with the demands, Harvard received a quote-unquote frantic phone call from a Trump administration official. The White House, however, is standing by its letter and has neither confirmed nor denied whether it was sent by mistake. The other update related to Harvard is that Harvard has officially filed a lawsuit against the administration due to the freezing of federal funds. Harvard argues the administration has violated its constitutional rights, namely the First Amendment, by seeking to control what university faculty may teach and whom the school may

hire. Harvard further argues that the government has cut off funds as part of its pressure campaign to force the university to, quote, submit to the government's control over its academic programs, end quote. Let's take our second and final break of the episode here and I will be right back. 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 Welcome back. Remember Signalgate, the Yemen group chat on the Signal app? Well, according to four anonymous sources, Defense Secretary Hegseth also shared information about the Yemen strikes in a private family group chat. So this allegedly happened on March 15th, the same day as the other Signal group chat, which included the reporter from the Atlantic. According to the four anonymous sources, the texts in the family group chat included the flight schedules for the jets that were tasked with targeting Houthi positions in Yemen. The sources say the family chat, which was called Defense Team Huddle, was created by

Hegseth himself, unlike the other signal chat, which was created by Trump's national security advisor Mike Walz. The family chat allegedly dates back to January, which is before Hegseth was confirmed as defense secretary and includes his wife, brother, personal lawyer, and 10 other people associated with Hegseth. So 13 people in total. Notably, Hegseth's brother and lawyer do also work for the Pentagon,

but it's unclear why they would be privy to this strike information, let alone the 11 other people. In the wake of the news of this family chat, different people are sharing different perspectives. The chief spokesperson for the Pentagon, Sean Parnell, wrote on Axe, quote, there was no classified information in any signal chat, no matter how many ways they try to write the story. What is true is that the office of the Secretary of Defense is continuing to become stronger and more efficient in executing President Trump's agenda."

End quote. A former Pentagon spokesman, who previously worked under Hegseth and was very loyal to both Hegseth and Trump, but resigned last week, wrote an opinion piece for Politico this week that described the Pentagon as, quote, total chaos under Hegseth's leadership. Yesterday, in response to an NPR report claiming that the White House is looking to replace

Hegseth, press secretary Caroline Levitt said, quote, this NPR story is total fake news based on one anonymous source who clearly has no idea what they're talking about. As the president said this morning, he stands strongly behind the Secretary of Defense." As for the president's own comment on Monday, he said, quote, it's just fake news. Sounds like disgruntled employees. You know, he was put there to get rid of a lot of bad people and that's what he's doing. You don't always have friends when you do that. And finally, before we get to quick hitters and critical thinking, let's talk about this new COVID webpage, shall we?

This is another one that a lot of you wrote in asking me to cover. So let's do it. When you go to covid.gov, you will now arrive at a White House landing page titled Lab Leak True Origins of COVID-19. For clarity, a landing page essentially means you're redirected when you go to a specific domain, right?

So multiple domains lead to the same landing page. In this case, both covid.gov and covidtest.gov take you to whitehouse.gov slash lab leak true origins of COVID-19. Basically, the first thing you see on this webpage is that header I just mentioned that says lab leak true origins of COVID-19. Basically, the first thing you see on this webpage is that header I just mentioned that says Lab leak true origins of COVID-19. Under that, the first piece of text reads, quote, the proximal origins of SARS-CoV-2 publication, which was used repeatedly by public health officials and the media to discredit the lab leak theory, was prompted by Dr. Fauci to push

the preferred narrative that COVID-19 originated naturally. Then underneath that are five arguments as to why COVID-19 could not have originated naturally. So those five arguments are as follows. One, the virus possesses a biological characteristic that is not found in nature. Two, data shows all cases stem from a single introduction into humans. Three, Wuhan is home to China's foremost SARS research lab. Four, researchers from the Wuhan SARS research lab

were sick with COVID-like symptoms in the fall of 2019 before COVID was discovered. And five, if there was evidence of a natural origin, it would have already surfaced, but it hasn't. The webpage then claims that government officials like Dr. Fauci interfered with investigations into the origins of the pandemic and used taxpayer dollars through an organization called EcoHealth Alliance to facilitate the gain of function research in Wuhan, China that

ultimately led to the creation of the COVID-19 virus. The webpage also highlights Fauci's pardon from President Biden, alleged HHS obstruction, alleged EcoHealth Alliance obstruction, alleged obstruction by Dr. Fauci's senior advisor, and alleged obstruction from the state of New York and New York's governor. The webpage also points to alleged flaws and gaps in the science behind commonly mandated COVID precautions, like social distancing, mask mandates, and lockdowns. So there's a lot on the website, even more than I just went over,

but you get the general gist. Many of you wanted to know what this webpage looked like before this lab leak change. Previously, when you went to covid.gov or covidtest.gov, you were taken to a page with information and updates on the pandemic and other resources, like how to order COVID tests, how to get vaccinated and how to get treated.

This was the case up until last week. Obviously now the webpage looks a lot different. So is the lab leak theory true? The short answer is that we don't know. No theory has ever been definitively confirmed and the origins have been hotly debated since the start of the pandemic. With that said, there are two prevailing theories. One, it was a natural spread from bats to humans, possibly in a market in Wuhan. And two, the virus was created in a lab in Wuhan and

accidentally leaked. In October of 2021, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a declassified report on the intelligence community's views on the origins, which leaned towards natural causes, but represented divided views. A subsequent declassified report in 2023 similarly noted that most of the Intelligence Committee was split on the origins. This past January, the CIA released their own report which said they had shifted from their previous assessment and concluded it's likely COVID was due to a lab leak. However, the agency added that it had low confidence in this assessment. Also in 2023, the Energy Department determined with low confidence that the virus came from a lab. The World Health Organization has said

that while an animal origin remains the most likely, the possibility from a lab. The World Health Organization has said that while an animal origin remains the most likely, the possibility of a lab leak must be investigated further before it can be ruled out. Many scientists believe the likeliest explanation is animal to human transmission, but other scientists say otherwise. So as you can see, we cannot say definitively what is true and what's not, and many scientists and intelligence community members are split on this issue. But that's what you need to know about the new COVID.gov landing page. Now for some quick hitters. The HHS says it will move to phase out the remaining eight petroleum-based artificial food dyes from America's food supply within two years. The FDA commissioner will provide more details in a press conference today,

but from what we know so far, the announcement will target artificial dyes used in cereal, ice cream, snacks, yogurt, and more. This follows the January ban on red dye number three, which has to be removed from food by January, 2027 and removed from medications by 2028. Also, a person familiar with today's announcement said that Secretary Kennedy is expected to announce

the approval of additional natural dyes. The FTC has filed a lawsuit against Uber for allegedly signing users up for its paid membership program without their knowledge and using deceptive billing and cancellation practices. The FTC says these actions violated the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shopper Confidence Act, which is a federal law passed during the Obama administration that outlaws deceptive online billing practices and, you know, unauthorized charges against consumers. An Uber spokesperson said Uber One's sign-up and

cancellation policy processes are clear, simple, and follow the letter and spirit of the law. Yesterday, the Education Department announced that the Office of Federal Student Aid will resume collecting payments on defaulted federal student loans on May 5. Collection was originally paused in March 2020 due to the pandemic, but it was extended multiple times during the Biden administration. According to a press release from the department, 42.7 million borrowers owe more than $1.6 trillion in student debt, and more than 5 million borrowers have defaulted.

The department says only 38% of borrowers are in repayment and up to date on paying off their loans. Starting May 5th, the FSA will restart the Treasury Offset Program, which allows the government to withhold tax refunds and other federal payments to cover unpaid loans. Later this summer, if borrowers don't respond or fail to make payments, the government says it will begin administrative wage garnishment, which is where employers are required to withhold up to 15% of an employee's disposable income, and that money then goes to FSA to

pay off the debt. Walgreens will pay a $300 million settlement to the DOJ for its role in the opioid epidemic. The DOJ filed a lawsuit in January of this year accusing Walgreens of illegally filling prescriptions for painkillers and other potent drugs despite warnings that these prescriptions were unlawful. The federal government alleged Walgreens actions violated the Controlled Substances Act and the False Claims Act, which relates to reimbursements from federal health programs such as Medicare. The settlement will be paid out over six years and includes 4% interest each year.

I don't typically cover foreign affairs or international affairs, but yesterday, Pope Francis, the 266th leader of the Catholic Church, died at 88 years old from a stroke which led to a coma and ultimately caused his heart to fail. Pope Francis made his last appearance on Easter Sunday, just one day before his death, at St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican City to bless the crowd. He will depart from a centuries-old tradition of being buried at the Vatican and instead be buried in St. Mary Major Basilica, which is his favorite church. And now it's time for some critical thinking. Remember the critical thinking segment is not meant to be too complex. It is not meant to stump you. It's just an exercise for our brains in a world where we are constantly told how and what to think.

Let's go back to the religious freedoms LGBTQ case that the Supreme Court heard today. Remember, the question in that case is this. Whether public schools burden parents religious exercise when they force elementary school students to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents' religious convictions and without notice or an opportunity to opt out. So I want you to think about a few things here. I have three questions for you. Feel free to rewind, that's the beauty of a podcast episode.

You can always come back to this. I know three questions might feel like a lot at the same time, so feel free to go one at a time. The first question is this, what are some potential risks and benefits of allowing opt-outs in public education based on religious exemptions? Think of at least one risk and at least one benefit.

Maybe, okay, I'll give you an idea or two, maybe a risk is the fragmentation of curriculum, right? Undermining the integrity of a shared educational experience. Maybe a benefit is respect for religious freedoms, respecting our constitutional rights. So think of one risk and one benefit at least if you can think of more, great. Question two is this, should parents have the legal right

to opt their children out of specific parts of public school curricula on religious grounds? I want you to think of one argument that says yes and one argument that says no and really challenge yourself, right? So if you are in favor of religious exemptions, challenge yourself to think of an argument that goes against religious exemptions. If you are against religious exemptions, challenge yourself to think of an argument in favor of these exemptions, right?

So come up with an argument that feels unnatural to you. And then finally, the last challenge, come up with at least one compromise solution that respects both the parent's religious freedom and the school's educational goals, okay? So the one I came up with is maybe as young children, right, elementary school children, there's the opportunity to opt out,

but then once the children are older, like in high school, it's mandatory exposure, something like that. Maybe what you come up with is something different. I will leave it to you to think of. So that is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. As always, have a fantastic next couple of days and I will talk to you again on Thursday.