UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (4/24/25): NIH Will Use Private (and Public) Medical Data for Autism Research, Trump Endorses $5,000 Baby Incentive, State Dept. to Reorganize, FDA to Ban More Food Dyes, and More.

Episode Date: April 24, 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. SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE WEEKLY NEWSLETTER. In today's episode: Supreme Court Reacts to LGBTQ/Parental Rights/Religion Case. Here's the Likely Winner (1:17) NIH Launches to Autism Research Initiative; Will Access Private and Public Data (8:21) NIH Enacts to Policy Prohibited Grants for Institutions With DEI Programs or Boycotts Against Israel (15:14) FDA to Ban More Synthetic Food Dyes (18:22) State Department Announces New Reorganization Plan (22:36) Elon Musk Says He'll Step Away From DOGE Role (25:11) Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias Task Force Holds First Meeting; Here's What It's All About (27:31) Quick Hitters: Man Executed in Texas, Google Bringing Employees Back to Office, Trump Considering Reducing Chinese Tariffs, Trump's New Accreditation Order, US Kills 74 Terrorists, Trump Admin Goes to Supreme Court Over Transgender Military Ban, Illinois Parade Shooter Sentenced, Trump to Meet With Jeffrey Goldberg (30:47) Rumor Has It: Is President Trump Implementing a $5,000 Cash Incentive to Give Birth? Is the Head Start Program Getting Cut? (35:18) 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

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, April 24th. Let's talk about some news. As a reminder though, my weekly newsletter is going out tomorrow morning. So my weekly newsletter is basically a newsletter full of quick hitters covering the top stories in politics, pop culture, health, and business news from this week. It's my latest passion project. I'm absolutely loving it. All of the readers are absolutely loving it too and the best part is is it's free. We love that. I always have the link to subscribe in every episode description but there are actually a few ways that you can find it

and subscribe. So you can either click the link in the episode description, that's the easiest way, that's the way I recommend doing it, or head over to substack.com or the Substack app and just search Unbiased Society, that's the name of the newsletter, or you can simply just do a Google search for Unbiased Society on Substack, that'll get you where you need to be as well.

The newsletter goes out tomorrow at 6 a.m. Eastern time, but don't worry, even if you don't subscribe until after 6 a.m. tomorrow, you can still access this week's newsletter from my Substack profile and you will be subscribed so that you'll receive next week's newsletter when it goes out. Okay, first story of the day,

the reaction from the justices in the LGBTQ parental rights religion case. We talked about this one on Tuesday, and I told you I would let you know how the justices were feeling in the next episode. That time has come. As a reminder, this case was brought by a group of parents who were not given the opportunity

to opt their elementary school students out of classroom instruction when reading storybooks centered around LGBTQ themes. For instance, one book was about a puppy that got lost in a pride parade. Another book was about a girl who attended her uncle's same-sex wedding. The parents argued that, one, the refusal to give an option to opt the kids out of the classroom instruction violates their right to free exercise of religion because they are not able to teach their kids about these things on their own terms and in a way that aligns

with their own faith. Two, they argue that they were essentially being pressured to change or abandon their religious beliefs in order to send their children to public school. Three, they argued that the classroom lessons involving LGBTQ storybooks were a form of indoctrination. And four, that they're not trying to ban the books, they're just wanting to be notified about the books and have the choice to opt out. The county school board, on the other hand, argued that there is no constitutional violation in removing the choice to opt out of the storybook readings because the parents nor the children have had a substantial burden placed on their religious practice nor are they being coerced to change their religious beliefs because of this classroom

instruction. Instead, the classroom instruction is just mere exposure to LGBTQ themes, and that's not enough to raise a constitutional violation per Supreme Court precedent. Now, when it comes to how the justices were feeling during arguments, first and foremost, it does seem as if this case will go in favor of the parents. The overall conversation centered around the deeper question of where do schools' educational responsibilities end and families' moral and religious values take over? Consequently, many of the questions from the justices were about what kinds of classroom

lessons would be objectionable and what wouldn't. So Justice Sotomayor, she's one of the liberal justices on the bench, asked whether simply showing a same-sex couple without any intimate behavior should be considered religiously objectionable. She asked, is looking at two men getting married, is that the religious objection? She noted that these books do represent real world diversity and they're not designed to indoctrinate but rather to represent all students. Justice Alito on the other hand, he's one of the one of the conservative justices on the bench, he presented the idea that these books

had an obvious or coercive moral message. He said quote, the book has a clear message and a lot of people think it's a good message and maybe it is a good message but it's a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with." And he said a reasonable accommodation here for those that disagree would be the choice to opt out. And this is where sort of the debate happened of exposure versus coercion and when teaching from these books becomes more than just exposure and rises closer to the level of coercion. Because remember, the argument from the school board is that these students are simply being exposed to these ideas, right? They're not being coerced to deviate from their faiths and therefore the presentation of the books and not giving the

parents an opportunity to opt out does not violate any constitutional rights. So Justice Thomas asked whether these books were simply just present in the classroom or whether they were being actively used as part of the curriculum. And the attorney for the school board explained that the teachers are required to use these books and the school board actually suggests

that they do so five times by the end of the year. The attorney said the whole point of including the books in the curriculum is so every student would be taught from them. This explanation prompted Justice Barrett to suggest that the teaching of the content in the storybooks might amount to more than just mere exposure. Justice Gorsuch expressed the same sentiment. Chief Justice Roberts at one point said that even if the school board's policy doesn't require students to affirm

what's being taught in these books, that might not be a realistic concept for a five-year-old. That telling these young students that they don't have to agree with their teacher might actually be a more dangerous message. The concern from the court's liberal justices mostly centered around the idea of this slippery slope, right? So if the court were to rule in favor of the parents in this case, parents would now have this broad discretion to opt out of school lessons. And ultimately, these objections would impact

the school curriculum with not everyone being on the same page. And even more, Justice Jackson, as how far the rule could go, wondering whether a parent could ask to have their child not placed in a classroom with a gay teacher who has pictures of her same-sex wedding in the classroom. In some, basically the majority of justices were puzzled at the fact that the county wouldn't allow the parents to opt their students out when many counties across the country offer an opt out option and when the county in question, right, Montgomery County, the county that's the defendant in this case even allows opt-outs in other lessons, just not for these particular book lessons.

And the attorney for the county, the school board argued that one, the school board wanted to eliminate the opt-out option for these lessons in particular, because it wanted to ensure that everyone benefited from the inclusivity lessons that the books were intended to teach. And two, that the opt-outs for

these lessons weren't administratively feasible because dozens of students had actually been opting out and that it wasn't possible for the school to make arrangements for the space supervision and alternate instruction needed for all of these kids that were opting out. So again, like I said in the beginning of this, it'll likely go in favor of the parents. A majority of justices did seem on board with that idea. The question was more so how far does the rule go? And on a related note, we don't know how broad or how narrow that rule will be. Will the court say parents can opt their children out of any school lesson that goes against

their religious beliefs? Maybe not. Maybe instead the court says when it comes to LGBTQ lessons specifically, parents can opt their children out due to religious objections, but it could also look different. So we will get a decision in this case within a month or two and I'll of course let you know what the court ultimately decides and what the rationale was in reaching that decision. Onto the next story. Let's talk about the NIH for a little bit. The director of

the NIH announced this week that the agency has plans to collect public and private health records to create a database to help find the cause of autism. This announcement comes after HHS Secretary Kennedy said the department will determine the cause of autism by September, though it does seem now as if that timeline will be pushed back a bit in light of this new announcement. The particular, this particular NIH initiative is called Understanding ASD, Integrating Diverse Data, Enabling Researchers to Examine Complex Factors,

Influencing ASD. This new federal database will use public and private data, including medication records from pharmacy chains, lab testing, and genomics data from patients treated by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Indian Health Service, claims from private insurers, and data from smartwatches and fitness trackers. The NIH is also having discussions with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to broaden certain agreements which govern access to data. The NIH director said that while researchers will be able to access and study private medical data, they won't be able to actually download the data.

And in saying this, the NIH director promised, quote, state-of-the-art protections to protect confidentiality. As far as who the researchers are, we don't exactly know how they'll be chosen besides, you know, just through the standard NIH processes. But we do know that between 10 and 20 outside groups of researchers will be given grant funding and access to these records. I do briefly want to touch on these state autism registries because they're getting some renewed attention in light of this announcement. But before I do, I want to make clear that we don't know whether the HHS has plans

to gain access to these state registries or whether the HHS already has access and will seek approval to use these state registries for their new initiative. It's also unclear at this point whether the HHS plans to create its own national registry. But here's what you need to know about state registries that already exist.

Currently seven states have some sort of mandatory autism registry, okay? So these states are Delaware, Indiana, North Dakota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Utah, and West Virginia. New Hampshire did have a registry as well, but last year the state actually repealed it and had the HHS destroy the records within the registry. Basically though, an autism registry will include information about a child that has been diagnosed with autism. It varies by state, but as an example, New Jersey's autism registry includes a child's name,

date of birth, current address, parents name, parents date of birth, the child's diagnosis, the provider that diagnosed them and when they were diagnosed. New Jersey says the information is kept private and that you can choose to be in the registry anonymously, but if you do that, your family won't be linked to special child health case management services.

New Jersey state law requires licensed healthcare providers to register any child with autism that they diagnose or follow who is a New Jersey resident and under the age of 22. To give you an idea of what this is for, in the FAQ section of New Jersey's Autism Registry website, it answers the question of why would you want your child registered? And the answer is as follows, quote, in recent decades, there has been an increase in the number of children diagnosed with autism. These children need extensive services. Early identification of children with autism and early intervention of the behaviors and symptoms associated with autism

improves later outcomes. The autism registry helps with this by referring families to special child health case management services who perform coordinated care and inform families of available resources or to early intervention if the child is under three years of age." End quote. The registry page also explains that it was created to better understand autism and to link families to these available services and supports. So like I said, each of the seven states will vary a little bit when it comes to required information and purpose, but that at least gives you an idea. So as I said, we don't know if these state registries are going to be used by the HHS in this new initiative or what role they will play, if any. The reason that they

are getting attention right now is because of this new NIH announcement and because people are wondering whether the HHS is going to try to implement an autism registry on a national basis or use this data that exists in state registries. As we've talked about in the past, Secretary Kennedy is a pretty divisive person when it comes to autism. Kennedy believes there's a link between autism

and environmental factors, which is what's led to the increase in diagnoses over the last 25 years. Whereas critics of Kennedy led to the increase in diagnoses over the last 25 years. Whereas critics of Kennedy argue that the increase in diagnoses is not related to environmental factors and is instead a result of increased awareness and earlier detection. Kennedy and his supporters argue

that Kennedy is just simply trying to do good with all of these initiatives that he's announcing. Whereas critics accuse him of not knowing what he's talking about and feeding into the conspiracies and lies. To illustrate that divide a little more, I'll give you a glimpse of what Kennedy says versus what an autism foundation says. About a week and a half ago, Kennedy wrote on X, quote, the autism epidemic has now reached a scale unprecedented in human history because it affects the young. The risks and

costs of this crisis are a thousand times more threatening to our country than COVID-19. Autism is preventable and it is unforgivable that we have not yet identified the underlying causes. We should have had these answers 20 years ago." End quote. In response to that, the Autism Science Foundation wrote, quote, the secretary referred to autism

as a preventable disease and committed to finding the environmental toxin that causes autism. While we agree with the secretary's stated goal of finding the causes of autism, he made a series of misstatements during his press event, including stating that adults with profound autism don't exist. RFK also falsely asserted that environmental factors are the primary cause of autism. In 20% of autism cases, one genetic variant can explain autism features, and in other cases there may be multiple genetic mutations interacting to cause autism." That statement from the Foundation does go on, it's a pretty long statement, but I tell you this to illustrate those divided beliefs. So we'll have to see where this new initiative goes and what kind of data ends up playing a role in this initiative, but that is what we know at this point.

Let's take our first break here and I will be right back. Welcome back. We are going to stick with the NIH for one more story. Earlier this week, the National Institutes of Health issued a new policy that prohibits grant funding to universities and researchers involved in DEI programs or those that are participating in boycotts against Israel. Specifically, the policy lays out the criteria for receiving grants from the NIH. It says,

By accepting the grant award, recipients are certifying that 1. They do not and will not, during the term of this financial assistance award operate any programs that advance or promote DEI, DEIA, or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws. And two, they do not engage in and will not during the term of this award engage in a discriminatory prohibited boycott. The policy defines these various terms, right? So the definition of boycott is the refusal to deal cutting commercial relations or otherwise limiting commercial relations specifically with Israeli companies or companies doing

business in or with Israel. So as we know, the Trump administration has argued that DEI programs undermine equal treatment under the law and therefore wants to ensure that federal funding doesn't support these policies. The administration also believes that DEI programs and boycotts against Israel could create division and promote agendas that don't serve the broader interests of all Americans.

Now, this policy is pretty similar to what we've been seeing with some universities, right? So we just talked about Harvard having its funding pulled. We talked about Columbia a few weeks ago and funding for these universities is being pulled due to the schools alleged in action against antisemitism on their campuses. Until this week, the NIH was canceling certain grants

on a grant by grant basis, right?ing certain grants on a grant-by-grant basis, right? So if there was a grant that went against the Trump administration's DEI policies, it would be canceled. But now what this new policy does is it basically gives the NIH the ability to cut off grant funding for entire institutions. So that's the difference here. An HHS official told CNN that the agency's ultimate goal is to stop funding research that doesn't align with the administration's vision for the NIH or HHS and to block grants to recipients that aren't adhering to federal anti-discrimination laws. Researchers have expressed concern that essential programs could now be cut due to this new policy and it could lead to layoffs, spending cuts, and the scaling

back of research programs. Now the question is will this policy stand? We don't know. The NIH is currently facing at least two lawsuits for those grant-by- grant cancellations that I mentioned a minute ago, but you know we'll probably see something similar for these institution-wide grant cancellations, right? And it'll likely be challenged in the same way that Harvard is currently challenging the revocation of its federal funding Which is a violation of the First Amendment Essentially what Harvard is saying is the government is coercing it to comply with the government's preferred messaging in order to receive these funds

Okay, sticking with the HHS for this next one, remember the HHS or the Department of Health and Human Services is one of 15 federal executive departments. The NIH, which we just covered in the last two stories, is an agency within the HHS, as is the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration. So earlier this week, HHS Secretary Kennedy

and FDA Commissioner Marty McCarrey announced plans to remove synthetic petroleum-based food dyes from the US food supply. The phase-out will focus on eight commonly used synthetic dyes, red 3, red 40, blue 1, blue 2, yellow 5, yellow 6, green 3, and citrus red number 2. We often see these dyes in foods like Cheetos, candies like Skittles and M&Ms, ice cream cones, even some baby foods, certain sports drinks. The list really goes on. Notably, California recently became the first state to ban certain synthetic dyes, and the FDA recently revoked approval for Red Dye 3.

So this new announcement from the FDA is in line with trends that we're seeing around the country. Now you might be wondering what petroleum based dyes actually are. And I will tell you they are synthetic color additives that are derived from crude oil and they're manufactured in a lab through a multi-step chemical process and then added to foods and medications to make them more vibrant or consistent in color. So in this week's press release, the FDA basically set forth six actions

that it will take to achieve its goals. So number one is set a national timeline for phasing out petrochemical dyes to transition to natural dyes. Two, it'll initiate the process of revoking authorization for additional synthetic food colorings like Citrus Red Number 2 and Orange B. Three, it'll work to eliminate the six remaining synthetic dyes from the food supply by the end of the year.

Four, it'll authorize four new natural color additives and accelerate the review and approval of others. Five, it'll partner with the NIH to research how food additives impact children's health and development. And six, it will request food companies to remove red dye three sooner than the current 2027-2028 deadline. Importantly, when Kennedy and McCarrey were asked how these changes would be enforced, Kennedy did clarify that there is no agreement, but rather an understanding.

McCarrie added that they hope to start in a friendly manner and see if it can be done without statutory or regulatory changes, but that if it's necessary, they will explore quote every tool in the toolbox to make sure it gets done quickly, end quote. As far as why this is being done, McCarrie and Kennedy cited possible links between the consumption of dyes and certain health conditions like ADHD, obesity, and diabetes. In the past, the FDA has acknowledged that synthetic dyes can exacerbate conditions like ADHD, but definitive causal relationships do still remain under investigation.

McCarty said, quote, we have a new epidemic of childhood diabetes, obesity, depression, and ADHD. Given the growing concerns of doctors and parents about the potential role of petroleum-based food dyes, we should not be taking risks and do everything possible to safeguard the health of our children. He also added that there is no one ingredient that accounts for the childhood chronic disease epidemic, and he said, quote, let's be honest, taking petroleum-based food dyes out of the food supply is not a silver bullet that will instantly make America's children healthy,

but it is one important step, end quote. To facilitate the transition from synthetic to natural dyes, the FDA says it will expedite the approval process for natural color additives. But as far as when we can expect these changes to happen, we don't really know for sure. So the FDA plans to revoke authorization for certain dyes as soon as possible, like Citrus Red Number 2 and Orange B, and the complete phase out of the remaining dyes is expected by the end of 2026, but that could get delayed.

As they said, the FDA is going to try to keep this friendly at first, but if they have to change statutes and rules, then that obviously could delay the plans. All right, onto the next story. The State Department released a reorganization plan this week. Let's talk about it.

The reorganization plan was accompanied by a's talk about it. The reorganization plan was accompanied by a statement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio which said, quote, in its current form the department is bloated, bureaucratic, and unable to perform its essential diplomatic mission in this new era of great power competition. Over the past 15 years the department's footprint has had unprecedented growth and costs have soared, but far from seeing a return on investment, taxpayers have seen less effective and efficient diplomacy." End quote. Keep in mind, the State Department is another one of those 15 executive

departments within the government. The State Department is responsible for foreign policy and diplomatic relations. So advising the president on foreign policy, negotiating treaties, representing the United States in international organizations, overseeing U.S. embassies and consulates, issuing passports and visas, supporting humanitarian aid, and more. The list goes on, but hopefully you get the gist. There are things that we know for sure about this reorganization plan. There are other things that are being reported

but that I can't necessarily confirm. So what we do know for sure because the reorganization chart was released to the public and because of course Secretary of State Marco Rubio has made comments about this is that certain region specific functions will be consolidated, some offices will be removed and certain programs will be eliminated.

For example, we know that the Office of the Undersecretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights will be eliminated. The Office of Global Criminal Justice and the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations will also be eliminated. However, certain elements of these offices will be moved to the Office for Foreign Assistance and Humanitarian Aid. will also be eliminated. However, certain elements of these offices will be moved

to the Office for Foreign Assistance and Humanitarian Aid. We know that the Office of Global Women's Issues will be eliminated as well. DEI efforts within the department, those will be eliminated. We know that a new bureau will be added that's meant to help with quote unquote emerging threats, things like cybersecurity, AI,

and space. According to Rubio, at least 15% of State Department staff will be cut, the number of offices will be reduced from 734 to 602, and about 137 other offices will be transitioned to other locations within the department to increase efficiency. Rubio further claims that the restructuring and staff reduction won't happen immediately. He says fired employees will receive 60 days notice. Let's now hop on over to Doge. So Elon Musk said on a call this week that he will step back significantly from his role with Doge. These remarks were made on a call with Tesla investors after earnings fell 71% in net profit

for Q1, falling from almost $1.4 billion to $409 million. After this earnings announcement, Musk got on the call with investors and reassured them that all was going to be okay, that he does expect some bumps this year, that his role in Doge has caused challenges for Tesla, but that he believes Tesla with excellent execution will be the most valuable company in the world by far. He also said on this call that he would be stepping back from his role with Doge after next month and devoting one to two days per week at that point. Now I do want to emphasize that Musk's role is up soon anyway, so it's unclear whether this

move is a result of the earnings loss or because his role is ending or a mix of both. So Musk was brought on as what's called a special government employee for Doge, and he acted as a senior advisor in this role, but the thing with special government employees is that they are limited to working for the government for no more than 130 days out of a 365-day period. So he's limited in the days that he can work anyway. He's already put in probably 100, maybe 120, depending on when his official start date was. So even that begs the question, how will he continue to work one to two days of the year

if he's almost at his limit? We shall see. To give you a little more clarity on the special government employee role, these are people that are hired for specific roles on a temporary basis. They're typically hired as experts or consultants, and they can either be paid or unpaid.

Musk, he's not paid. The last thing I'll say here is this, Musk's departure probably won't have much of an impact on Doge, though it's hard to say for sure, right? When you look at the numbers, Doge had about 100 employees as of last month, they're trying to get to 200, and for the most part, Doge is already up and running.

So the day-to-day functions of Doge likely won't change much once Musk does step back a bit, but as with anything only time will tell for sure. Let's take our second and final break here and I will be right back. Welcome back. Let's talk about this eradicating anti-Christian bias task force that held its first meeting this week. A lot of you have a lot of questions.

First and foremost, this task force is something that was set up via an executive order in February. Part of that order directed the Attorney General of the United States to head this task force that all cabinet members, meaning all heads of the 15 departments, would be a part of and work together to eradicate what the administration calls anti-Christian bias. In support of this executive order, Trump cited to certain Biden administration actions such as the FBI classifying certain radical traditionalist Christian groups as having a high potential for domestic terrorism, the arrests of pro-life protesters outside of abortion clinics, a Christian Foreign Service Officer who was

supposedly threatened with an investigation for child abuse after he insisted on homeschooling his child, the stigmatizing of federal workers who oppose the vaccine mandate on religious grounds, retaliation against employees for opposing DEI and LGBT ideology on religious grounds, and other actions as the catalyst for creating this task force. The order further accused the Biden administration of engaging in significant legal discrimination against peaceful Christian people while turning a blind eye to violent anti-Christian crime. So the purpose of this task force is to investigate, address, and prevent these types of actions that I just cited to from the order. More specifically, though, the task force will scrutinize federal agencies for any

actions or policies that could be construed as discriminatory against Christians and find and reverse any anti-Christian actions that the previous administration allegedly performed. According to the task force, this can include overt acts, such as imprisonment of pro-life protesters, or subtle acts like denial of religious exemptions, perceived punishment of Christian employees, or restrictions on displaying Christian symbols in the workplace.

In practice, the task force will basically act as a watchdog, an enforcement body, and as a legal and policy advisory group. So when allegations of anti-Christian discrimination, quote unquote, are brought to the task force, the task force will investigate and take any steps it deems appropriate. The administration has actually already created in anonymous form for federal employees to report any perceived anti-Christian bias. Now, many of you have asked me whether this is legal or constitutional. We'll see if there are

any legal challenges filed here and what happens with those. The only thing that really comes to mind as a possibility, I guess there's two things. So one, maybe an equal protection challenge in the scenario where the Christian religion is being given legal preference over other religions, or maybe if eliminating anti-Christian bias comes at the expense of other religions' autonomy. The second thing potentially an establishment clause violation if the task force is seen as excessive government entanglement, but who really knows? Like I said, we'll have to see what kind of challenges develop here, if any. Now for some quick hitters. Texas executed death row inmate Moises Sandoval Mendoza for

the 20—I keep saying 2024—for the 2004 murder of Rochelle O'Neal Tullison. Mendoza was convicted of fatally strangling and stabbing Tullysen, who was 20 years old at the time of her death, and had a six-month-old daughter. In March of 2004, Mendoza took Tullysen from her home in North Texas, and her body was discovered in a field near a creek six days later. Mendoza confessed. He told investigators that he strangled her multiple times, that he sexually assaulted her, and that he moved her body to a field where he eventually stabbed her in the throat. He was executed last night via lethal injection at 6 40 pm. He did not get a special

request final meal because Texas does not offer it to death row inmates like other states do. Google is reassessing its remote work policies as part of broader cost cutting efforts. According to internal documents, several units within Google informed remote employees that their employment may be at risk if they refuse to return to a nearby office for a hybrid work schedule. A Google spokesperson said in a statement to CNBC, quote, as we've said before, in-person collaboration is an important part of how we innovate and solve complex problems. To support this, some teams have asked remote employees that live near an office to return to in-person work three days a week." The Trump administration is considering reducing tariffs on Chinese imports.

On Tuesday, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, quote, 145 percent is very high and it won't be that high. It will come down substantially, but it won't be zero." The president and White House officials have said the US and China are taking part in active discussions about the tariffs, but today China denied those assertions and said that because the United States was the one to increase tariff measures, if the United States wants to solve the problem, it needs to completely cancel all unilateral tariff measures against China. On Wednesday, President Trump signed an executive order titled Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education. The order reads, quote, to realign accreditation with high quality,

valuable education for students, the Secretary of Education shall ensure that one, accreditation requires higher education institutions to provide high-quality, high-value academic programs free from unlawful discrimination. 2. Barriers are reduced that limit institutions from adopting practices that advance credential and degree completion and spur new models of education. 3. Accreditation requires that institutions support and appropriately prioritize intellectual diversity amongst faculty in order to advance academic freedom, intellectual inquiry, and student learning. Four, accreditors are not using their role under federal law to encourage

or force institutions to violate state laws. And five, accreditors are prohibited from engaging in practices that result in credential inflation that burden students with additional unnecessary costs. According to National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, President Trump has ordered airstrikes that have killed 74 terrorist leaders since the start of his presidency. According to US military and intelligence officials, this number includes two global leaders of ISIS, 36 fighters and leaders of a group in Somalia, the senior military leader of an al-Qaeda affiliate, an Islamic State boss operating out of Syria, an Islamic State

attack planner, and 13 other high-ranking operatives. And the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court today to allow it to enforce a ban on transgender service members while the litigation is pending. This appeal comes after a federal judge in Washington state issued a nationwide injunction blocking the ban from being enforced pending litigation. The man who killed seven people and wounded nearly 50 more at a 2022 4th of July parade was sentenced today to seven consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole. The death penalty was off the table in this case because Illinois abolished the death penalty in 2011. And finally, later today, President Trump will meet with Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor

of The Atlantic, who was mistakenly included on the Signal group chat last month. Trump wrote on Truth Social, quote, Later today, I will be meeting with, of all people, Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor of The Atlantic and the person responsible for many fictional stories about me. I'm doing this interview out of curiosity and as a competition with myself, just to see if it's possible for The Atlantic to be truthful.

Are they capable of writing a fair story on Trump? The way I look at it, what can be so bad? I won." End quote. All right, now onto Rumor Has It, my weekly segment where I address rumors submitted by all of you and confirm them, dispel them and or add context. First one, Rumor Has It, my weekly segment where I address rumors submitted by all of you and confirm them, dispel them, and or add context. First one, Rumor Has It that President Trump wants to offer a $5,000 incentive to Americans

who have babies. This is true in the sense that President Trump voiced his support for the idea, but it's unclear whether the proposal will actually take shape. So this baby incentive is actually one of a few ideas that the Trump administration is reportedly considering in an effort to persuade Americans to have more babies. And by the way, this information I'm about to give you, it does come from anonymous sources, so do without what you will. Other ideas that have reportedly circulated include reserving 30% of scholarships for the government-backed Fulbright program for applicants who are married or have children, creating government-funded programs that educate women on their menstrual cycle, and this one that we're talking about today, which is the $5,000 cash incentive. White House officials have been meeting with policy experts about boosting the birth rate in

the United States. According to the Congressional Budget Office's latest forecast, America's fertility rate is now projected to average 1.6 births per woman over the next three decades, which is below the level of 2.1 births required to maintain a stable population without accounting for immigration. These meetings between the White House officials and policy experts were originally reported on by the New York Times with the information coming from four people who have sat in on the meetings but like I said spoke on the condition of anonymity. When President Trump was asked about the potential cash incentives by reporters in the Oval Office, he said it sounded like a good idea to him. Other countries have similarly tried to improve their birth and fertility rates with direct cash benefits.

However, it's not, you know, the data doesn't really show that it helps too much. Some of these countries include Australia, Hungary, South Korea, and Singapore. But to get to the heart of the rumor, yes, the White House is reportedly considering a $5,000 cash incentive. However, there are no formal plans. Rumor has it that the Head Start program may get cut. This is a maybe, we don't know. If someone tells you that it is for sure getting cut,

or it definitely is not getting cut, just know that those people don't actually have the answer, just like I don't have the answer. But let's add some context here and talk about, one, why this rumor is going around, and two, what it means. So the Head Start program was established in 1965 by President Lyndon B. Johnson to contribute to the war on poverty, right? It's intended to help low-income families and children by providing free services to support child development.

It's administered by the HHS and it uses a federal-to-local funding model in which the HHS provides funding to qualifying school-to-local funding model in which the HHS provides funding to qualifying school districts, nonprofit groups, religious institutions, and other organizations. Most children who participate in this program are preschool-aged. Around 556,000 are preschool-aged, but the program also helps about 235,000 infants and toddlers. Supporters of the program argued that children

in the program are more likely to graduate from high school and attend college or other higher level education, demonstrate better social, emotional, and behavioral aptitude, and are more prepared to raise children themselves. A report commissioned by Congress in 1998 found that the children in the program experienced short-term benefits, but partisan

debate exists over whether these benefits are impactful in the long-term sufficiently enough to sustain the program. So that's a little bit about the program and what it does. As the name implies, it's meant to give children up to age five who come from low-income families or are in foster care or some other situation a head start. But let's talk about where this particular rumor is coming from, that funding for head start is going to be cut from the HHS budget. On April 11th, a leaked discretionary budget pass back led to reports that the Trump administration

is considering eliminating all funding for head start. The document was obtained by the Washington Post, and it showed a one third total cut in HHS discretionary spending. So a decrease in the HHS budget from around 121 billion in fiscal year 2024 to around 80 billion in fiscal year 2026. A pass back refers to a budget draft that is subject to change.

It's called a pass back because the Office of Management and Budget passed back the budget after it received input from HHS and officials in the Office of Management and Budget. In other words, it's a draft produced after discussion about what should be included and what should be cut from the HHS's budget. This is different from the actual legislation that determines the budget, right? According to an anonymous federal health official, agencies can appeal to the HHS for changes after seeing the propositions outlined in the pass back, but cuts will remain in place. According to the actual pass back document that was leaked, the decision to eliminate all funding for Head Start to contribute to this downsizing is because, quote, the federal government should not be in the business of mandating curriculum, locations, and performance standards

for any form of education. Now, supporters of the program have strongly criticized possible cuts. The executive director of the National Head Start Association said, we urge every parent, every American, and every believer in the American dream to reach out to their elected officials to express their outrage about such a proposal. Critics, on the other hand, have voiced their support for the program's elimination. Specifically, the Head Start section of Project 2025 says, quote, eliminate the Head Start program. Head Start, originally established and funded to support low income families, is fraught with scandal and abuse. With a budget of more than $11 billion,

the program should function to protect and educate minors. Sadly, it has done the exact opposite. In fact, approximately one in four grant recipients had incidents in which children were abused, left unsupervised, or released to an unauthorized person between October 2015 and May 2020. When a spokesperson for the White House Office of Management and Budget was asked about the potential cut to Head Start, she said, quote, no final funding decisions have been made, end quote. So I wanna be clear that this information is coming from that leaked pass back, right?

We won't actually know what will be cut until the legislation passes in the coming months. That is what I have for you. Thank you so much for being here. As always, I hope you have a fantastic weekend and I will talk to you again on Monday.