UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (4/3/25): What You Need to Know About Trump's Reciprocal Tariffs, Mangione's Possible Death Sentence, Covenant School Shooter Final Report, and More.

Episode Date: April 3, 2025

Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: President Trump Announces Reciprocal Tariffs. Here's What It Means (0:38) DOJ Seeks Death Penalty Against Luigi Mangione (10:52) HHS and Ed. Dept. Reviewing $9B in Harvard Grants and Contracts (15:40) Nashville Police Release Final Covenant School Shooting Report (18:38) Judge Says Trump Administration Must Restore Legal Funding for Unaccompanied Migrant Children (26:32) Quick Hitters: Sen. Booker Breaks Speech Record, WI Supreme Court Race Most Expensive in History, Eric Adams' Charges Dismissed, Man to Plead Guilty in Attempted Assassination of Kavanaugh, FDA Delays COVID Vaccine Approval, USDA Pauses School Funding for State of Maine, White House Responds to 'Musk Leaving' Article, Trump Signs Ticketing Order, House Attempting to Limit Judicial Power, States Sue Over HHS Covid Funding Cuts (30:01) Rumor Has It: Was a Man Mistakenly Deported? How Did Trump Really Calculate Reciprocal Tariffs? (36:53) Critical Thinking Segment (41:23) 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 3rd. Let's talk about some news. As a quick reminder, a new edition of my newsletter drops tomorrow, so be sure to subscribe if you're not already. The newsletter is my latest passion project where I give you quick snippets of news every Friday morning,

not just related to politics, but also pop culture, business, and health. It's completely free, all you have to do is put in your email address and you can always find the sign up link in the episode description. Now, of course, today we have to start this episode by talking about what the Trump administration is calling Liberation Day in the United States, which was yesterday. President Trump named April 2nd Liberation Day for American trade. This actually isn't the first time he has used the phrase Liberation Day during his inaugural address.

He referred to January 20th as Liberation Day as well. Why? Well, liberation is defined as the act of setting someone free from typically imprisonment, slavery, oppression, things of that nature, or just the general release or freedom from something. When it comes to political liberation, it's usually a movement against a colonial power or national government seeking their own independence. So for instance, many countries celebrate their liberation from Nazi Germany, Bangladesh celebrates liberation from Pakistan, Guam celebrates liberation from Japan,

but we've also seen Liberation Day used in the context of concentration camps like the Liberation of Auschwitz, which was just celebrated at the end of January, actually. So when describing April 2nd as one of the most important days in American history and the declaration of economic independence, President Trump declared the day Liberation Day. The point of this, according to the administration, is to liberate the United States from economic surrender by imposing tariffs on the many countries that already impose tariffs on us. The stated goal is to use

the foreign revenue raised, you know, through these tariffs to reduce taxes here in the United States while simultaneously decreasing US debt and encouraging domestic manufacturing. Now the tariff structure that was announced yesterday essentially has two tiers. The first tier is a baseline 10% tariff, which will be applied universally to all, to imports from all countries, with the exception of Canada and Mexico. That's because of an agreement that we have with those two countries. And that baseline tariff will take effect on Friday. The second tier, which will take effect next Wednesday, includes country-specific reciprocal

tariffs based on the tariffs that those countries have placed on the United States. For instance, China, according to this chart released by the administration, places a 67% tariff on the United States, so China will see a 34% reciprocal tariff. This is in addition to the 20% tariff on China already in effect. Vietnam places a 90% tariff on the United States, so Vietnam will see a 46% reciprocal tariff. Depending on the country, the tariffs range from 10 to 49 percent, but there are roughly 60 countries that will see these country-specific reciprocal tariffs. Because the United States isn't matching the tariffs on the United States, President Trump has called them kind reciprocal tariffs and not full reciprocal tariffs. So just to be clear, all 185-ish countries and territories will see a 10% tariff, but 60 specific countries will see reciprocal tariffs on top of that

10% baseline tariff. And before we get any further, I just want to flag that there has been some discourse surrounding how the reciprocal tariffs were calculated, and we will talk about that more in the rumor has it segment of today's episode. Keep in mind, a tariff is basically a tax placed on an imported good. So let's take the 20% tariff placed on all Chinese goods. A US manufacturer company, whoever, imports Chinese goods into the United States, that importer is going to pay

a 20% tariff on those goods to customs importer protection, which ultimately gets paid to the US Treasury. So if it's $100 worth of Chinese goods, the US importer is going to pay CBP an additional $20. Consequently, they may increase the price of whatever they're selling domestically to make up for that extra $20 they had to pay the government. But maybe the U.S. importer decides they don't want to pay to import Chinese goods, so they look elsewhere for that same good, or they source domestically here in the United States. That is the point of tariffs.

To either punish another country by incentivizing US importers to stop buying from them and or incentivizing US companies to manufacture or source domestically. Now, let's say China has a 50% tariff on something the United States makes. A reciprocal tariff is when the United States says, okay, if you're going to put a 50% tariff on us, we are going to put a tariff on you. And that is what we're seeing here. So there are roughly 60 countries that have tariffs on US goods.

And what Trump is doing is putting reciprocal tariffs on all of those countries that have impacted our ability to trade via these tariffs. Now, over the last 70 years or so, tariffs have not accounted for much more than 2% of total federal revenue. However, when the United States became its own independent country way back when, tariffs were actually, I shouldn't even say way back when, relatively speaking, compared to the rest of the world. It's really not that long ago. But when we first became an independent country,

we became the United States, tariffs were the main source of government revenue. At the time, tariffs on other countries were 40% or more, and they were particularly used during these years to protect new industries that were up and coming, right? Especially in the New England area, because high tariffs meant that products imported into the United States had a competitive disadvantage to products sourced within the United States.

Tariffs were the main source of revenue for the United States at this point. It wasn't until 1913 when federal income tax was introduced that we stopped prioritizing tariffs because now the government was getting all of its money from its own citizens. About 17 years after we started relying on income tax, in 1930, Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which again raised tariffs on a range of imports. This was during the start of the Great Depression, and it was meant to protect U.S. businesses. This law, though, actually led to retaliatory tariffs by other countries and is a big part of the exacerbation of the Depression. So, tariffs are a tricky game. During President Trump's Wednesday speech,

he also signed an executive order which declared a national emergency due to trade deficits. And the reason he did this is because to impose tariffs for the president, to impose tariffs, he has to declare a national emergency under law. Here, Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to do so. Interestingly, the IEEPA has never been used to impose tariffs before President Trump, though it does give the president broad power to act in order to protect national security. So we may see a legal challenge here because we have seen legal challenges similar in the past. The thing is, the Constitution gives Congress the authority to impose tariffs and collect revenue. But Congress has delegated that power to the president in certain instances. And it does this

by enacting laws like the IEEPA, like the Trade Expansion Act, like the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. Historically, courts have generally upheld these laws against constitutional challenges, so it's likely that if these new tariffs imposed under the IEEPA were challenged, the judiciary would most likely uphold it. Speaking of Congress, though, the Senate did pass a resolution last night that would specifically block the current tariffs on Canada. Two GOP senators also backed the resolution, which allowed the resolution to pass the Senate

in a 51-48 vote despite Republicans having the majority. Importantly, the resolution will now go to the House, but nothing requires Speaker Johnson to take it up, so it will likely die there. Before we move on to the next story, though, let's quickly talk about the arguments for and against Liberation Day. The main arguments in favor of these reciprocal tariffs are that they put America first and they encourage domestic operations and manufacturing. As far as the arguments against, they largely revolve around the costs that the tariffs will impose on manufacturers and therefore consumers. Some

economists worry that as prices for imported materials rise because of the tariffs being paid by the importer, consumer prices will also rise and could impact low-income households the most. Retaliation is also another concern. The EU said that it would impose retaliatory tariffs if necessary. Canada said that it would retaliate. China also warned the United States to drop the new tariffs. So if these countries did retaliate, that would result in what's called a terrafore between us and other countries. When the market opened this morning, the S&P dropped 3.4%, which put it on track for its worst day since September 2022. The Dow fell more than 814 points, or more than 4%, and the Nasdaq dropped 3%. Obviously certain multinational companies

saw their shares fall more than other companies because those multinational companies are the ones that manufacture abroad and import into the United States. So Nike, Apple, Dollar Tree, Gap, et cetera. These countries are going to see the biggest impact from these reciprocal tariffs. I think that pretty much covers all the

bases. Like I said, we will touch on these tariffs more in Rumor Has It and critical thinking actually. So for now, let's move on to the next story. The DOJ announced this week it would seek the death penalty against Luigi Mangione, the suspected shooter of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. So here's what I want you to take a mental note of before we get into this story. Mangione is facing state charges in New York, but he's also facing federal charges. Two different jurisdictions, okay? New York does not have the death penalty, but the federal government does. So Mangione isn't facing death for his New York state charges, but he is facing death for his

federal charges, namely murder and stalking. In a statement on Tuesday, Attorney General Pam Bondi said, quote, Luigi Mangione's murder of Brian Thompson, an innocent man and father of two young children, was a premeditated, cold-blooded assassination that shocked America. After careful consideration, I have directed federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty in this case as we carry out President Trump's agenda to stop violent crime and make America safe again. As alleged, Luigi Mangione stalked and murdered UnitedHealthcare executive Brian Thompson on December 4, 2024. The murder was an act

of political violence. Mangione's actions involved substantial planning and premeditation, and because the murder took place in public with bystanders nearby, may have posed grave risk of death to additional persons." End quote. So I do want to clarify something else because there was someone on Instagram that said they weren't surprised that the DOJ was seeking the death penalty because it would make it harder to convict Mangione. In other words, that the DOJ was trying to make it more difficult for Mangione to be found guilty by a jury because the burden for a death sentence is so high. But that's not the case because conviction and sentencing are two separate phases of

a trial. Mangione can be found guilty but not be sentenced to death and instead get life without the possibility of parole. So guilt and sentencing are two different things. A little context on the federal death penalty. So the federal death penalty officially began in 1789, however it does go back further than that. But over the years, the death penalty has been paused and then resumed and then paused again and then resumed again. Between 1972 and 1988, it was suspended because of a Supreme Court decision called Furman v. Georgia. Then, despite the suspension being lifted in 1988, there actually wasn't another federal execution until 2001. Between 2001 and 2003, only three people were executed.

And then no executions took place between 2003 and 2020. In 2020, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, I don't have this number written down, but I think it was 13 executions under President Trump. I'm, you know, don't hold me to that number, but I think it was something somewhere around 13. Then in 2021, the Biden administration came in and put a pause on executions. When Trump took office in January, he reinstated the federal death penalty. So it's back on the table. And also I should mention, I've talked about it before, but President Biden also, in addition to putting that pause on the death penalty right before he left office, he commuted the sentences

of many of the inmates, all federal death row inmates, except for three. So now all of those people have life without parole instead of the death penalty. There are only three inmates on death row currently. There are certain crimes eligible for the death penalty at the federal level. These include murder, treason, genocide, or the killing or kidnapping of a congressman, the president, or a Supreme Court justice. In addition to committing one or more of those crimes, the defendant has to also have had intent or a high degree of culpability with respect to the death of the victim and one or more aggravating factors to be eligible for the death penalty.

And when I say aggravating factors, I mean factors that make the crime arguably worse. So maybe the killing took place while committing another serious offense. Maybe there's a prior criminal history involving serious violent offenses, or maybe the killing took place after substantial planning and premeditation, which is what the DOJ will argue in Mangione's case. So a federal jury first has to find a defendant guilty or not guilty of the actual crime at issue. Then, if the jury returns a guilty verdict, that's when the jury weighs these other things we've just talked about to determine whether they believe the defendant should be sentenced to death.

And the jury's decision does have to be unanimous. If it's not unanimous, the defendant will get life. So that's a little bit about the federal death penalty. Let's take our first break here and I will be right back. Welcome back. Earlier this week, the Trump administration said it is reviewing about $9 billion in federal grants and contracts awarded to Harvard. Specifically, the departments conducting the review include the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and the General Services Administration. Now, a lot of you wrote in asking why this review is happening, but also why the university gets so much funding. So first, why is this review happening?

The Department of Education specifically cited to its efforts to combat antisemitism in saying that this review is part of the ongoing efforts of the Joint Task Force to combat antisemitism. Last month, the Education Department warned roughly 60 higher education institutions about potential enforcement actions if they do not fulfill their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect Jewish students on campus. The recent press release from the Education Department in regards to Harvard said that this review is meant to ensure Harvard's compliance and said, quote, Today's actions by the task force follow a similar ongoing review of Columbia University.

That review led to Columbia agreeing to comply with nine preconditions for further negotiations regarding a return of canceled federal funds. The task force will continue its efforts to root out anti-Semitism and to refocus our institutions of higher learning on the core values that undergird a liberal education." End quote. Of the $9 billion under review, $255.6 million is in current contracts, $8.7 billion is in grants spread over multiple years, and the money is spread amongst Harvard as well as its affiliates. According to USASpending.gov, Harvard's biggest recipient of contracts and grants include the President and Fellows of Harvard College, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, the General Hospital Corporation, the Dana-Farber Cancer

Institute, and the Brigham and Women's Hospital. If we look at specific grants that Harvard receives, some of the larger ones include a $280 million grant from the Federal Transit Administration to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, 69 million from the HHS to the President and Fellows of Harvard College for the Harvard University Center for AIDS Research, 44 million from the National Science Foundation to the President and Fellows of Harvard College for

the Center for Integrated Quantum Materials, and another 44 million from the Department of Energy to Harvard Medical School for Research Relating to Microbial Ecology. It's unclear whether the administration will attach conditions to this funding once they complete their review, kind of like how they did with Columbia, but the Education Department did make mention of that possibility in its press release. In other news, Nashville police have released their final report on the 2023 Covenant school shooting that left three third graders and three adults dead. This report details the timeline of events, what the shooter left behind, and what the shooter's apparent motive was.

So the shooter was 28 year old Audrey Hale who in recent years had started to go by Aiden Hale and use him pronouns. As far as Hale's gender and sex though, the report says, quote, it should be noted that in life the offender, Audrey Hale, gender identified as male and used he-him as preferred pronouns. Under Tennessee law, a person's gender identity must correspond with their biological sex or with information present on their certificate of live birth. As Hale was a biological female at the time of her death and throughout the incidents described in the summary and in the case file, Hale will be referred to as a female." The report starts by detailing the timeline of events.

Hale left her house at 8am on March 27th, carrying a large duffel bag and backpack. She arrived at the school around 9.53 a.m. She sent a goodbye message to her friends on Instagram from her car, entered the school at 10.09 a.m. with three firearms, a tactical vest, and magazines. She first fired at the front doors to shatter the glass and then proceeded to crawl through the glass to gain access to the school. The first victim was shortly thereafter. It was a custodian who

came out to check on the noise from the shattered glass. Upon firing at him, the smoke detector actually went off, which triggered the fire alarm in the school. So then students and faculty began to evacuate the building. And Hale went to climb the staircase to the second floor. A third grade class was climbing down that same staircase at the same time and that is when she fired several shots at the group and killed three third grade students and one substitute teacher. Hale's last victim was the assistant principal

who went to figure out why the fire alarm was going off without knowing that there was an active shooter in the building. For the next few minutes, so at this point, the faculty and students had returned to the classrooms and locked the doors. She, Hale was going around shooting into the doors, but then proceeded to wander the halls and offices

within the school trying to find more victims because at this point everyone was hiding. Luckily she did not find any more victims. At 10 19 a.m. at 10 minutes after she fired the first shots, the first responding officers arrived. The report says being completely unfamiliar with the interior of the school, the officer found the layout of the of the school, the officer found the layout of the school to be a maze and was unable to hear any gunfire on the other end of the school. This officer eventually joined other officers at one of the south entrances where those

officers were trying to enter. So at this point, Hale was perched at a window on the second floor where she could actually see the parking lot and all of the first responders arriving and getting out of their cars. She proceeded to fire multiple rounds at the officers for over two minutes. Eventually the officers inside the building were able to determine where the shots were coming from and located Hale on the second floor. One officer fired at her, hitting her and knocking her to the ground. As officers approached her, they saw she, quote, still had possession of her firearms and her arms were moving, end quote. So that's when a second officer then fired at her again and killed her.

Upon a search of Hale's home, car, and belongings, multiple items were taken in as evidence, including 16 notebooks, assorted folders and loose documents, seven sketchbooks and composition books, a school yearbook, six thumb drives, six cell phones, though only one of those cell phones was actually turned on and active, two laptops, an iPod, a DVD, two Google Drive data clouds, a Facebook account, and an Instagram account. Given the fact that so many items were seized and investigators were able to actually see years and years of journal entries, personal notes, etc., the report makes mention that detectives were offered an opportunity to examine Hale's life

in far more detail than most other criminal offenders. So we'll talk about motive in a minute, but the report also addressed the rumor that Hale left behind a manifesto. So the report says, quote, early in the investigation it was suggested Hale left behind a manifesto detailing her motives and intentions. This has elicited a great deal of interest from the public and had led to repeated demands that this manifesto be released for public study and comment. By definition, a manifesto is a mission statement or other document written and disseminated by an individual or group to enumerate or expound upon the guiding principles and beliefs

that inform their actions. Regardless of length, a manifesto is a single document that outlines all the factors, intentions, and objectives of an individual, act, or series of actions. In this case, a manifesto did not exist. Hale never left behind a single document explaining why she committed the attack, why she specifically targeted the Covenant, and what she hoped to gain, if anything, with the attack. As previously mentioned, what did exist were a series of notebooks, art composition books, and media files created by Hale documenting her planning and preparation for the attack, the events in her life that motivated her to commit the attack, and her

hopes regarding the outcome of the attack. No single document, notebook, or digital device contains the answer to those questions. The answer is scattered throughout all assembled material, which require a careful review of the material to understand Hale's motive." End quote. So that takes us to motive. The report says, quote, in short, the motive determined over the course of the investigation was notoriety. Even though numerous disappointments in relationships, career aspirations, and independence fueled her depression and even through this depression made her highly suicidal, this

doesn't explain the attack. As Hale wrote on several occasions, if suicide was her goal, then she would have simply killed herself. Throughout the writings and videos, Hale frequently commented that her death needed to matter and be remembered. She believed that by simply committing suicide, she would be quickly forgotten and not even worthy of a footnote in history. She craved the notoriety Harris and Klebold attained following Columbine. This can be seen clearly with the frequent references in her writings and videos of how they became gods

following their attack. This led to a deep desire on her part to become a god like them and other mass killers who attained notoriety, even if it meant infamy. She expected there would be books and documentaries dedicated to her and the attack, how her bedroom would become a museum dedicated to her memory, and expected her firearms, artwork, and writings to be prominently displayed in museums worldwide. She wanted her mental health to be a prominent topic of discussion and debate.

Most disturbingly, she wanted the things she left behind to be shared with the world so she could inspire and teach others who were mentally disordered like her to plan and commit an attack of their own. Hale felt that she would be a failure if she killed less than 10 people during the attack. In that respect, she did fail in no small part due to the actions of the faculty and staff at the Covenant, but she managed to attain the notoriety she craved simply by self-documenting her life and actions in a way no other mass killer has done before. She hoped her attack would be different simply by

providing years of writings, artwork, and digital media files which explained her motives and actions. In this respect she succeeded." End quote. I do have the full report linked for you if you're interested in reading it, per usual. You can always find my sources section by clicking the sources link in each episode description. In some legal news, a judge has ordered the Trump administration to reinstate legal funding for migrant children. We actually first covered this particular storyline at the end of February, but since

then there have been a few updates. If you remember, we talked about the fact that the Trump administration had issued a stop work order to the Acacia Center for Justice, but that stop work order was later rescinded and the Acacia Center was allowed to continue working and representing unaccompanied migrant children. To give a little more context here,

the Acacia Center for Justice has a federal contract with the Office of Refugee Resettlement to provide legal services for unaccompanied migrants younger than 18 that were either in the office's custody or had been released. Under federal law, migrants are not guaranteed the right to free legal representation like US citizens are, but in the past federal funds have been allocated to non-profit groups like the Acacia Center to provide lawyers for migrant children specifically. So when that stop work order was released and then rescinded, that was the end of February. Then at the end of March, the administration officially ended its contract with the Acacia Center. Following that, 18 of the legal aid groups that are subcontracted by the Acacia Center. Following that, 18 of the legal aid groups

that are subcontracted by the Acacia Center sued the administration. And they're arguing that under a 2008 anti-trafficking law called the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, the government is obligated to provide unaccompanied children with legal counsel to protect from mistreatment,

exploitation, and trafficking. The administration, on the other hand, argues that government funding under this 2008 law is discretionary, meaning the government gets to decide how it's funded and who gets the funds. The DOJ further argued that the government is still funding legally required activities like certain clinics, but those are essentially the arguments on both sides. The plaintiffs are arguing the spending is mandatory. The administration is arguing the spending is discretionary. So the plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order or a temporary injunction, which would

essentially prohibit the administration from canceling the contract with Acacia while this lawsuit is playing out and while the court considers a more final decision on the merits. So remember, with temporary injunctions, the court has taken into account a few things. The likelihood that the plaintiffs will win the lawsuit once arguments are heard, whether the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted, and whether the injunction is in the public's interest. Ultimately, the judge determined that the question as to whether the funding is mandatory or discretionary is a serious one and that

serious question weighs in favor of maintaining the current Acacia contract while the arguments develop further and the court makes a more final decision. In speaking to the irreparable harm element, the judge ruled that the termination of funds has already forced the plaintiffs to issue layoffs and dismiss their highly specialized attorneys and therefore if a restraining order isn't granted, the plaintiffs will continue to suffer this same type of irreparable harm. So what this means is the administration will have to continue funding the Acacia Center pending a final decision, or the administration can appeal the temporary restraining

order to the appellate court and try to get it overturned. Let's take our second and final break here. When we come back, we'll do some quick hitters, rumor has it, and critical thinking. Welcome back. Let's run through some quick hitters. On Tuesday, Senator Cory Booker broke the record for the longest ever delivered speech in the Senate. The speech lasted just over 25 hours, beginning Monday night, ending Tuesday night, and it was meant to be a symbolic protest against President Trump and his recent actions. During Booker's speech, he addressed a variety of issues including the cost of living, deportations, tariffs, healthcare, workforce reductions, and other policy changes under the Trump administration.

Notably the previous record for the longest Senate speech was held by Senator Srom Thurmond who spoke against the Civil Rights Act for 24 hours and 18 minutes in 1957. Thurmond's speech though was a filibuster which is a speech meant to obstruct the passage of a bill. Booker's speech was not a filibuster, it was just a speech. Also another interesting little fact, marathon speech rules require the speaker to remain standing and not take any bathroom breaks for the duration of the speech, which means Senator Booker did not sit or take a bathroom break for just over 25 hours. In some other news, the Wisconsin Supreme Court race set a record as the most

expensive state Supreme Court race in American history, with spending exceeding $98.5 million. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, groups spent $45 million in support of Susan Crawford and $53 million in support of Brad Schimel. The liberal candidate or, I guess I gotta give this disclaimer again, but Supreme Court justices do run as nonpartisan. However, justices do have ideological leanings, which is why we describe some justices as liberal or conservative. And so that is why I use those words. The liberal candidate,

Susan Crawford, won the race Tuesday night, which means the Wisconsin Supreme Court will remain majority liberal. A federal judge has dismissed the federal corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams at the request of the DOJ. This dismissal was with prejudice, which means the charges cannot be refiled. Adams was indicted in September 2024. He was facing five federal corruption charges, which included bribery, wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and two charges related to soliciting campaign contributions from foreign officials. On a somewhat related note, we'll just group these in with each other. Earlier today, Adams announced that he will run for re-election, but this

time as an independent, turning away from the Democratic party. Nicholas John Rosk is expected to plead guilty next week to charges of attempted assassination of Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh. In June 2022, Rosk was arrested near Kavanaugh's residence and was reported by authorities to have been wearing all black, carrying zip ties and armed with a gun and a been wearing all black, carrying zip ties, and armed with a gun and a knife. In a letter to the judge, Rosks' attorneys stated that he intends to plead guilty and has requested that the guilty plea hearing take place on April 7th or April 8th. The FDA has delayed granting full approval of Novavax's COVID-19 vaccine, despite it previously

being on track for clearance. The FDA allowed the emergency use of Novavax's COVID-19 vaccine, despite it previously being on track for clearance. The FDA allowed the emergency use of Novovax's COVID-19 vaccine during the pandemic. However, now that the national emergency is over, the agency is determining whether the vaccine is cleared for continued use. According to the Wall Street Journal, senior leaders at the agency are now sitting on the decision and have said that the Novovax application needed more data and was unlikely to be approved soon. On Wednesday the US Department of Agriculture announced a pause and review of federal funding for certain Maine educational programs claiming the state did not comply with Title IX as defined by President Trump's keeping men out of women's sports order.

In a letter to the governor of Maine, US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke of Agriculture Brooke Rollins said, quote, you cannot openly violate federal law against discrimination in education and expect federal funding to continue unabated. Your defiance of federal law has cost your state, which is bound by Title IX, in educational programming. Today I am freezing Maine's federal funds for certain administrative and technological functions in schools. To get that funding restored, the state has to demonstrate compliance with President Trump's order. Also on Wednesday, the White House responded to a Politico article titled, Trump Tells Inner Circle that Musk Will Leave Soon. Press Secretary Caroline Levitt posted to X, quote, Elon Musk and President Trump have

both publicly stated that Elon will depart from public service as a special government employee when his incredible work at Doge is complete. Keep in mind, Elon Musk was brought on as a special government employee, which is defined as an employee expected to work no more than 130 days in a 365 day period. This of course means that Musk's role within the Trump administration as a special government employee is limited to 130 days, which will end at the end of next month. President Trump also said this week that while he thinks Musk is amazing, Musk will have to return to run his own company soon, referring to Tesla.

Earlier this week, the president signed an executive order titled, Combating Unfair Practices in the Live Entertainment Market. The purpose of the order is to end price gouging for live event tickets and in part, directs the attorney general and FTC to ensure competition laws are appropriately enforced in the concert and entertainment industry. Kid Rock was present in the Oval Office for the signing.

The House introduced a bill called the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025 which seeks to limit the authority of district courts to provide nationwide injunctive relief. So as we talked about earlier in this episode, an injunction is a court-ordered remedy that orders a party to take or refrain from certain actions. We've talked about these a lot lately with all of the lawsuits against the administration. If passed, the bill would limit the district court's power to only providing injunctive relief

to cases specific to the party bringing a lawsuit. In other words, if I sue you for something you did, the court can only prevent you from taking that action against me, not the whole country. The bill, if passed, would essentially do away with most power to provide nationwide injunctions and would limit the power of judges to pause Trump's executive orders. And finally, in some more legal news, 23 states and Washington, DC have filed a lawsuit against

the Trump administration due to the HHS's funding cuts. Remember how last week I talked about the CDC pulling $11.4 billion in COVID funding that had been allocated towards state and local health departments. Well, now 23 states and DC say the funds were allocated for public health, mental health, and addiction initiatives, and that the administration must be immediately stopped from rescinding the funding.

In the lawsuit, the attorneys general assert that many of the eliminated funds were never intended solely for COVID-19 response and that they were allocated to support long-term public health infrastructure, future pandemic preparedness, and critical behavioral health services. Now it's time for my weekly segment called Rumor Has It, where I address some rumors submitted by all of you and either confirm them, dispel them, or add context. Rumor has it that the Trump administration admitted that it mistakenly deported a man to El Salvador and cannot get him back. This is true. So, Abrego Garcia lived in Maryland with his wife and son. In 2019, he received a notice to appear in removal proceedings because he had

entered the country illegally. At a Bond hearing, ICE said that a confidential informant told them that Abrego Garcia was an active member of the MS-13 gang. Accordingly, bond was denied. Abrego Garcia then filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal. And according to the Trump administration, he was deemed removable by the court, but was granted a withholding of removal anyway,

which meant that he couldn't be removed. Fast forward five and a half years to last month, Abrego Garcia was stopped by ICE and they told him that his immigration status had changed. He was detained, he was questioned about gang affiliations and he was subsequently removed to El Salvador where he is currently being held out of prison. Once he was removed,

his lawyers filed a temporary restraining order on his behalf and asked that the court return him to the states. In response to this motion, the Department of Homeland Security filed its response, temporary restraining order on his behalf and asked that the court return him to the states. In response to this motion, the Department of Homeland Security filed its response, which in part explains that an administrative error led to his deportation despite ICE being aware that he was protected from removal. Specifically, the department's response reads, quote, on March 15th, although ICE was aware

of his protection from removal to El Salvador, Abrego Garcia was removed because of an administrative error." Rumor has it that the new reciprocal tariffs don't actually match what other countries charged the United States like the administration said. Let's add context. When President Trump announced the reciprocal tariffs yesterday, he held up these boards that basically showed what other countries charged us versus what we are now charging them.

And his point was that these aren't full reciprocal tariffs but rather kind reciprocal tariffs because we're not matching what they charge us but rather giving them a discounted tariff. In fact, we're charging them half or less than what they're charging us in most cases according to these charts. Charts, for instance, the chart says China charges us 67 percent, we're charging them 34 percent. Japan charges us 46 percent, we're charging them 24 percent. South Africa charges us 60 percent, we're charging them 30 percent, so on and so forth. And on that chart it says the tariff charge to the United States by these other countries takes into account currency manipulation and trade barriers.

But one journalist posted on X that the Trump administration actually used a pretty simple calculation to get the number that other countries are charging us, and that is the country's trade deficit divided by its exports to the United States times 0.5. This post prompted a spokesperson, or actually was the deputy White House press secretary, to then post a screenshot of the equation used by the Office of the US Trade Representative and wrote, no, we literally calculated tariff and non-tariff barriers. The journalist then replies to the Deputy White House Press Secretary's post and writes, quote, the Deputy White House Press Secretary is claiming that I'm wrong.

To prove it, he screenshots the formula the USTR says was used to calculate the reciprocal tariffs we imposed on other countries. And when you back out the Greek symbols, what is that formula? Trade deficits divided by imports. Exactly what I said it was. I don't know if the deputy press secretary was misinformed or is just being misleading. Either way, the Trump administration did not literally calculate tariff and non-tariff barriers to determine the rates it's imposing on other countries.

It divided our trade deficit with a country, buy our imports with that country, and then multiplied by 0.5 because Trump was being quote-unquote lenient. Mike O'Rourke, the chief marketing strategist at Jones Trading, penned a note to investors today highlighting why knowing how these rates are being calculated is important. He said, quote, Knowing how these rates were calculated highlights that they are generally going to be most severe on the nations that United States companies rely heavily upon in their supply chain. It's hard to imagine how these tariffs would not wreak havoc upon the profit margins of major multinational corporations. End quote. Now, listen, I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I know this kind of math or that I understand

Greek mathematical equations. Okay. I'm a lot of things here and pretend that I know this kind of math or that I understand Greek mathematical equations, okay? I'm a lot of things. A mathematician is not one of them. So I do have the relevant sources linked for you in the sources section of this episode, including the Office of the US Trade Representative's equation and explanation for all of you mathematicians out there. But that's the context I can give you for this one. For today's critical thinking segment, we obviously have to keep talking about tariffs because why wouldn't we? Remember the critical thinking segment,

it's just an exercise for our brain in a world where we're constantly told how and what to think. It's not meant to be complex. As we know, whether tariffs are good or bad is not so cut and dry, but let's think about them for a second. First, check in with yourself. How do you feel about these reciprocal tariffs? Are you feeling nervous? Are you feeling excited? Is it a mix of both? And why are you feeling that way? If you're feeling excited about them and you tend to be in favor of tariffs, I want you to consider the hypothetical where these reciprocal tariffs lead to retaliatory measures from

other countries, which ultimately causes American exports to become more expensive or causes a reduction in demand for US goods. If this were to result in economic decline and job losses in export-dependent industries, kind of like what we saw during the Great Depression when tariffs were reintroduced, would you still support the policy? Why or why not? Now, if you're nervous about it and you don't really like the idea of these reciprocal tariffs or tariffs generally, imagine the situation where these reciprocal tariffs do what they are intended and force other countries to lower their trade barriers which in turn gives American companies a more level playing field. If this

strategy resulted in a long-term boost to domestic manufacturing and job growth but maybe a bit of short-term pain. Would you reconsider your opposition? And of course, why or why not? I actually put together a pretty interesting compilation of opinions that express why tariffs are good, why tariffs are bad, and then also why the tariff strategy is more complex than just good or bad. It's not my opinions. It's opinions that I've sourced.

I may post it to SubSac in the coming days, so be sure to subscribe to my SubSac page if you're not already. SubSac is also where my newsletter is. So you can kill two birds with one stone there. Again, you can find the signup link in this episode description. That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here.

Have a fantastic weekend and I will talk to you on Monday.