UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (4/7/25): Are the New Tariffs Reciprocal or Not? PLUS Here’s Why the Stock Market Is Down, How Goldberg Got Added to the Yemen Chat, and More.

Episode Date: April 7, 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: US Adds 228,000 New Jobs in March; Here's What It Means (1:56) TikTok Bidding War Continues As Trump Extends Ban Deadline (4:57) New Report Reveals How Jeffrey Goldberg Got Added to Yemen Group Chat (7:02) Trump Administration Takes Mistaken Deportation Case to Supreme Court; Puts DOJ Attorney on Administrative Leave (9:03) Are the New Tariffs Reciprocal or Not?? Here's What You Need To Know About the Arguments on Both Sides. PLUS Why the Stock Market Is Taking a Hit. (14:49) Quick Hitters: Supreme Court Denies Firearm Regulation Case, Justices Allow Trump Admin to Hold Off on $65M in Grants, Border Inspectors Charged in Bribery Scheme, Measles Death in Texas, Trump Administration Protests Around the Country, Musk Seeks Zero-Tariff Solution with Europe (29:32) 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 Monday, April 7th Let's talk about some news today's episode is going to be a little shorter than usual because I actually spent a lot of time researching the tariff situation and not as much time covering other stories the good news is though because I've spent hours and hours researching what's going on with the tariffs and what's going on with the stock market, I am now very knowledgeable and very familiar

with what's going on, and therefore you will now be very knowledgeable and very familiar. We will start this episode with some non-tariff related stories and then we'll finish with a pretty lengthy tariff discussion. The tariff discussion will take up

the second half of the episode. Also, quick pause. I want to give you guys a shout out really quick. So I was talking to someone today about how people are so quick to react to certain things and so quick to call me biased in certain instances and my podcast got brought up because the person said to me, well, I'm sure your podcast listeners pick apart everything you say. And I said, well, actually, my podcast listeners are incredible. It's the ones that only follow me on social media and don't listen to the podcast that tend to do most of the accusing and tend to not be able to handle facts that, you know, don't necessarily align with their position.

And I went on to explain to them that my podcast listeners are the open-minded ones the ones that you know can handle hearing things that maybe They don't necessarily want to hear and can think for themselves and be open to other perspectives and other ideas and I just really love you guys for that So I just wanted to take a quick second to thank you for, you know, being you and for being my type of people and for tuning into the show. I really, really just appreciate you so much. So with that quick shout out out of the way, let's get into today's stories. We learned Friday that the U.S. economy added 228,000 new jobs in March, which well surpassed economists' expectations between 130,000 and 200,000.

At the same time, the unemployment rate held steady at 3.8% and wage growth rose moderately. Now, rather than just giving you these numbers, I do want to talk about what these numbers mean for the economy and why we care about these numbers, specifically the new jobs. First, why do we care? We care because more employment tends to reflect more economic confidence.

When businesses hire more workers, it says that they're confident about future demand for their goods and services. Put another way, companies don't take on new employees if they expect a slowdown. So strong hiring numbers often points to growing consumer demand and economic resilience. Another reason we care is because people with jobs tend to spend more money on goods and services, whether that be groceries, housing, entertainment, et cetera.

Spending fuels the economy. In fact, consumer spending makes up about two-thirds of US economic activity. So most of the time, higher employment supports GDP growth. Now, I also mentioned that wages grew moderately. That's an important economic indicator too, because if wages grow too quickly, it can actually fuel inflation and employers tend to pass those higher labor costs on to consumers. On the other hand, steady or moderate but not overheated wage growth, kind of like we're seeing here, moderate, means that people have more to spend without also seeing those price increases. That's a good thing. Now, of course, we also have to mention that March numbers don't take

into account the tariffs that were announced last week. Economists were sure to note that the numbers in March were strong, but could very well be upended by the new uncertainty in the market. We talked a second ago about spending fueling the economy, while we have to also keep in mind that spending goes down with uncertainty. Goldman Sachs wrote in a note to investors following this new jobs report that the quote better than expected jobs report will help ease fears of an immediate softening in the U.S. labor market. However, this number has become a side dish with the market just focusing on the

entree, which is tariffs. End quote. The chief U.S. economist at JP Morgan similarly wrote in a note to clients quote, today's news, meaning the job report does seem a little Dated but at least it's good news that hiring wasn't already weakening before the turbulence caused by the shock from trade policy So economists and people generally and investors will be keeping an eye on These economic reports over the next few months to see how this new tariff announcement starts to have an impact. The March numbers don't really yet tell us anything about that. And like I said, we will close out this episode talking more about tariffs, but for now, let's switch gears a little bit and talk about the bidding war for TikTok. President Trump announced on Friday that he would extend the TikTok ban for

another 75 days while he considers various purchase proposals from American companies and investors. So as we know, during Biden's presidency, Congress passed this law, right, which essentially says that TikTok's parent company, ByteDance, had to divest or the app would be banned due to national security issues. That ban was set to take effect on January 19th,

and it kind of did, but also kind of didn't. The app stores did take it down temporarily, but for those that already had the app downloaded, nothing happened. One day after the ban took effect, Trump took office, and he extended the ban by 75 days. The law had a provision in it that allows the president to extend by 75 days, so that is what he did.

Well, that 75 days expired over the weekend on April 5th and Trump issued another 75 day extension. So as of now, reports are saying that the top bidders include companies like Oracle, Amazon, though some reports say Amazon's bid isn't being taken seriously, Microsoft, Walmart, some individual investors like Elon Musk, Mr. Beast, Frank McCourt, Kevin O'Leary, RJ Phillips, and Tim Stokely. Now, Oracle already hosts TikTok data on its servers, so Oracle is being looked at as the front runner. Another deal being considered would involve

some of the non-Chinese TikTok investors increasing their ownership in the company and therefore reducing the ownership in the company and therefore reducing the ownership of the Chinese investors below 20% because that's what's required under the law. As far as the type of deal that the US is ultimately looking for, that's unknown. One of the bidders proposed a full merger that would allow ByteDance to hold on to a 20% stake and keep the 7,000 engineers in China employed. But multiple sources also reported that other deals being considered involve ByteDance maintaining control

of the TikTok algorithm. So there's a lot that's unclear as of now. These companies and investors are kind of just submitting their own proposals, but perhaps more will become clear in time. Now for a little update on the signal accidental text front. More specifically, we have an update as to how the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic was added to the Yemen group chat set up by National Security Advisor Mike Waltz. According to a forensic review by the White House Information Technology Office, Waltz saving Goldberg's number in his phone was due to an iPhone suggestion. So it all reportedly started when Jeffrey Goldberg emailed the Trump campaign back in October about a story that criticized Trump for his attitude towards wounded service members. Goldberg's

email to the campaign was then forwarded to the then Trump spokesperson, Brian Hughes, who then copy and copied and pasted the contents of the email, including the signature block that had Goldberg's phone number into a text message that he sent to Waltz. This was how Hughes informed Waltz of the upcoming story. According to the investigation, Goldberg's number was then mistakenly saved during what's called a contact suggestion update by Waltz's iPhone. So basically those of you that have an iPhone will recognize this but the iPhone's algorithm will ask you if you want to add an unknown number to an existing contact that it thinks

might be related. In this case Waltz's iPhone supposedly asked Waltz if you wanted to update Brian Hughes' contact to include the number in Goldberg's signature line because the number was included as part of Hughes' text to Waltz. Apparently, Waltz did update the contact when prompted with the suggestion, and the mistake went unnoticed until last month when Waltz meant to add Brian Hughes to the Signal group chat but ended up adding Goldberg's number instead. So that's what we've learned. The DOD is also conducting their own investigation into the series of events that led to Goldberg

being included in this text thread, but we have not heard much from that department at this point. This next story, a couple of updates to a story from last episode. On Friday, a federal judge ordered the government to return a man to the United States who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador despite a 2019 court order prohibiting his removal. The administration has since appealed the order and maintains that the judge does not have jurisdiction over the man's return since he is now in another country. The lawyer that argued on behalf of the DOJ in Friday's hearing has since been placed on leave. According to a report from the New York Times, Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested that the attorney was placed on leave for not zealously advocating for the administration's position. So we have a few things to talk about here but

let's back up. Last week we talked about this guy, Abrego Garcia, who was living in Maine illegally and was brought in for an immigration hearing in 2019. At that hearing, ICE presented evidence of Abrego Garcia's alleged affiliation with the MS-13 gang. And the information presented was from a confidential informants testimony. Abrego Garcia was thereafter denied bond. Eventually, though, he married a US citizen and was subsequently granted a work permit by the DHS as well as an order that prohibited his removal from the United States on the basis that it was more likely than not, he would be persecuted by another country if he were returned.

Despite this order prohibiting his removal, the Trump administration deported him to El Salvador last month due to what it called an administrative error. The administration made that admission in a court filing last week after the man's attorney asked for him to be returned so a break of Garcia was actually on one of those flights to El Salvador that You know has caused the drama in the other case the alien enemies act case if you've been keeping up with that case, too if you listen to the podcast, you know what I'm talking about, but after the

administration admitted to the administrative error in its court filing, the judge went ahead and scheduled a hearing for Friday because she wanted more information from the administration as to what was going on and what the legal justification was for deporting Abrego Garcia. At Friday's hearing, the attorney for the DOJ told the judge that Abrego Garcia is involved in human trafficking, yet also told the judge that he should not have been deported. As it pertains to the gang affiliation, the administration maintains that Abrego Garcia belonged to the New York chapter of MS-13 because of a confidential informants testimony in 2019.

However, Abrego Garcia never lived in New York and the court has yet to receive any additional evidence besides the informants testimony that he was affiliated with MS-13. The judge also asked the DOJ attorney why Abrego Garcia was sent to El Salvador of all places. The attorney responded, I don't know that information has not been given to me. Eventually, after the attorney was asked for a few more details surrounding Abrego Garcia's removal, he told the judge that he himself was frustrated at the fact that he didn't have answers for a lot of the questions.

When the DOJ attorney was asked if he had any evidence that showed why Abrego Garcia was arrested last month, the attorney replied, quote, "'The absence of evidence speaks for itself. The government made a choice here to produce no evidence,' end quote. When asked why the United States couldn't get Abrego-Garcia back to the United States, the DOJ attorney responded, quote,

"'The first thing I did was ask my client, the government, the same question. I have not yet received an answer that I find satisfactory." End quote. After that hearing, the judge ordered Abrego Garcia's return to the United States before Monday night. So before tonight at midnight, the judge found that Abrego Garcia was apprehended and deported without a legal basis. In light of that hearing, the attorney that argued on behalf of the DOJ was put on administrative leave.

Attorney General Pam Bondi, which is who heads the DOJ, told the New York Times, quote, At my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States. Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences." End quote. attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences." Following Friday's order requiring the return of Abrego Garcia, the administration did three things. Really, well, now three things. Initially two things, but now three things.

It filed an emergency appeal asking the appellate court to put the lower court's order on hold. And it asked the lower court to put its own order on hold while it appealed. Both of those requests have since been denied, which prompted the administration to go to the Supreme Court this morning. In its filing with the Supreme Court, the administration wrote that the lower court's order sets the United States up for failure. It argued that the Constitution allows the president, not the courts, to handle foreign diplomacy and handle protecting national security against foreign terrorists by effectuating their removal. So the administration said because courts don't have power over foreign diplomacy and it's the

president that has that power, the lower court was wrong in requiring the administration to work with El Salvador in returning the man to the United States. So we'll have to see what the Supreme Court decides to do with the administration's request, but that is where the case stands as of now. Keep in mind, the deadline set by the lower court to return Abrego Garcia to the United States is tonight at midnight, so we'll likely see some sort of decision from the Supreme Court by the end of the night tonight.

Let's take a break here and I will be right back. McDonald's has entered a Minecraft movie universe and Grimace, Bertie and Hamburglar just spawned as new collectibles in the overworld. Now for a limited time, you can get one of six McDonald's collectibles when you order a Minecraft movie meal with your choice of a Big Mac or a 10 piece chicken McNuggets with spicy nether flame sauce. A Minecraft movie meal available now at of a Big Mac or a 10-piece chicken McNuggets with spicy nether flame sauce. A Minecraft movie meal available now at your local McDonald's. See it in theaters April 4th. Meal available for a limited time while supplies last. Have participating Canadian restaurants.

This is a Reese's Peanut Butter Cub sound experiment. We're looking to find the perfect way to hear Reese's so you'll buy more of them. Here we go. Peanut butter cups. That breathy one sounded very creepy, am I right? For the second half of this episode, we are going to focus on the tariff situation. We'll do quick hitters at the very end of the episode, of course, but there are a lot of aspects of the tariff situation that we need to talk about, specifically why the Trump administration is calling these tariffs reciprocal and why others are saying they're not reciprocal and what is going on with the stock market and what it means.

And I actually want to save the reciprocal arguments or reciprocity arguments for the end. So let's start with the stock market. The tariff announcement was made on Wednesday of last week. The following day on Thursday, we saw the three major indices, the Dow Jones S&P and NASDAQ fall between four and six percent. As of today, all three were still down. These are the biggest and quickest declines we've seen

since the announcement of the pandemic in 2020. By the way, these three major indices track the performance of a segment of the stock market. So the S&P 500 features the 500 leading US publicly traded companies. The Dow Jones is just 30 prominent companies. And then the NASDAQ consists of more than 2,500 stocks, but more heavily weighted towards the tech sector. All three combined help us see a bigger picture of how people or how investors are feeling about the economy.

However, note that the economy and the stock market are not the same, right? The stock market represents investor confidence and expectations about the future earnings and performance of various companies. And through this, it gives us an insight as to how investors are feeling about the economy as a whole. Now, when we say a stock is up or down, we're referring to the company's share value, which is a measure of how profitable a company is expected to be when looking ahead. When the market is going down, that's an indication that investors are expecting to see decreases in profit. Tariffs obviously impact the market because many American companies rely on cheaper foreign

production. So, with tariffs in place, these companies will now have to pay a higher tax to get their products back into the United States once they are produced overseas. Oftentimes when a company, and we've talked about this a lot, but when a company has to pay a higher tax at some point in the production process or when importing, they'll increase the price of their product to make up for it. Or if they don't, their profits are sure to drop, right?

Then, of course, you have the threat of retaliatory tariffs. If other countries retaliate against the United States and impose higher tariffs on American goods, it would be more expensive for that country to buy American goods. And therefore, American companies would either have to lower their prices to incentivize these foreign companies to continue purchasing their products or these other countries might just stop purchasing American goods. Either way leads to a decrease in revenue for American companies. So again, the stock market represents future predictions of company profits and because there is currently so much uncertainty. We are seeing the stock market take a hit

We don't know how long this hit is going to last again. There's just too much uncertainty We don't know if it's gonna bounce back in the short term or if it's gonna, you know take longer than that We just don't know right now but that's what I want to say about the stock market so that we all have a better idea of what's actually happening and why the stock market is taking the hit that it's currently taking. With that out of the way, let's talk about the arguments surrounding reciprocity. First, we have to talk about what reciprocal tariffs are. Reciprocal tariffs, as the name implies, are tariffs imposed on other countries in response to tariffs being imposed on them.

If country A imposes a 10% tariff on country B's exports, country B might impose a reciprocal 10% tariff on country A's exports. So if China imposes a 20% tariff on US goods, let's say we might impose a reciprocal 20% tariff on Chinese goods. Currently, the US and its trading partners charge each other different tariffs on the same products, right? So as an example, Germany puts higher tariffs on cars made in the US than what the US puts on cars imported from Germany. Germany is trying to protect its vehicle industry in doing this. Now, there are roughly 13,000 codes that determine the tariff rates on a variety of products. So it goes without saying that setting up

reciprocal tariffs across every product category with every trading partner would be infeasible. Therefore proponents of the administration strategy argued that issuing these sweeping tariffs is the best way to achieve the desired result. Critics, on the other hand, say that we should focus on industry-specific tariffs rather than just slapping extensive tariffs on every industry. In other words, we should focus on the industries that we want to protect most here in the United States and put genuinely reciprocal tariffs on those specific industries. In this situation, the Trump administration has imposed these tariffs with the goal of ending the United States' trade deficit with individual countries.

And we know this, yes, because of what the administration has told us, but also because of the formula used to come up with these tariffs. So what is a trade deficit? A trade deficit happens when a country's imports exceed its exports. So when we bring in more from China than we send to China, the opposite of a trade deficit is a trade surplus. Now, some people like a trade deficit, others don't. There are advantages and there are disadvantages.

Whether the United States should be in a trade deficit with other countries is not something everyone agrees on. And perhaps we can dive into those arguments another day, but for today, I'm going to leave it at that. It's not cut and dry. So now that we know what a trade deficit is, let's talk about the formula shared by the White House. The formula that the White House used in

calculating these new tariffs basically calculated the trade deficit that the United States has with any given country and divided it by our imports from that country. For example, our trade deficit with China is $285.4 billion. In 2024, the United States imported $439.9 billion worth of Chinese goods. When you divide these two numbers, you get roughly 65%. This is the number the administration put on its charts as the tariff China is charging the United States. Keep in mind though that that is not the tariff

China is charging the United States. Instead, it is various trade variables taken together. And that is why some argue that these new tariffs are not in fact reciprocal. But we'll get there more in a minute. And I can already tell because people feel very passionate about this debate. I'm sure there's people hearing me right now that are saying, no, no, no, these are reciprocal or no, no, no, these are not reciprocal. I will touch on both both of these sides in a minute. me right now that are saying, no, no, no, these are reciprocal or no, no, no, these are not reciprocal.

I will touch on both of these sides in a minute. So just let me get there. One other thing I wanted to mention, this is just something that that's just kind of crazy, but it's also just politics. So since the 80s, Trump has been saying that tariffs are necessary to eliminate the US trade deficit and promote domestic manufacturing. While Trump was advocating for tariffs to rein in the US trade deficit decades ago, guess who else was?

Nancy Pelosi. In 1996, Nancy Pelosi spoke to Congress about the importance of leveling the trade playing field with China specifically and how our trade deficit with China was too high and how their tariffs on us are much more than our tariffs on them and how we need to do something about it. Now on one hand, this isn't that crazy, right? Because Trump was a Democrat until he ran for president. So him and Nancy Pelosi were Democrats together when they were both saying this.

But on the other hand, this is crazy because you'd be one hard pressed to find Pelosi and Trump coming together on anything nowadays. But again, that's politics for you. And two, because of the partisan divide we're seeing today over this tariff situation. Getting back on track, though, are these tariffs truly reciprocal? The White House argues yes, while also acknowledging that its calculations are not based solely on other countries' tariffs, which just so happens to be the argument on the other side

as to why these tariffs are not reciprocal. So the White House emphasizes the importance of leveling the playing field that has been, quote, tilted against US companies. As we've talked about, President Trump argues that this imbalance contributes to the country's persistent trade deficits. In his view, the solution is simple. If they charge us, we charge them. Hence his claim

that these tariffs are reciprocal. In fact, President Trump calls these tariffs kind-reciprocal because in many cases, according to him, we're not charging other countries as much as they're charging us. Now, at the same time, the administration has also acknowledged that the new tariffs are a compilation of many factors. It's not dollar-for-dollar reciprocal tariffs. And to illustrate this, I will quote a February 13th release from the White House titled Reciprocal Trade and Tariffs. In February, the White House wrote that the administration would, quote,

"...work on countering nonreciprocal trade agreements with trading partners by determining the equivalent of a reciprocal tariff with respect to each foreign trading partner. The approach will be comprehensive in scope, examining nonreciprocal trade relationships with all United States trading partners, including any tariffs imposed on U.S. products, unfair, discriminatory, or ex-territorial taxes imposed by our trading partners, including a VAT tax, costs to U.S. businesses, workers, and consumers arising from non-tariff barriers or measures, and unfair or harmful acts, policies or practices, including subsidies and burdensome regulatory requirements on U.S. businesses, policies and practices that cause exchange rates to deviate from their market value to the detriment of Americans,

and any other practice that imposes unfair limitation on market access or any structural impediment to fair competition with the market economy of the United States End quote. So in February the administration said that they were going to take all of these things together and and or all of these things and put them together and come up with a number what it calls equivalent to a reciprocal tariff to impose on these other countries. However, you have many that say that this is not a reciprocal tariff at all for that exact reason. So let's talk about that side of things. The argument that these are not reciprocal tariffs lies on the foundation that to

be reciprocal, the tariffs have to be equal to the tariffs we face from these other countries. And these are not that. And we know that these are in fact not dollar for dollar reciprocal because the administration said so in that briefing that we just went over. Plus, the formula released by the Office of the United States Trade Representative tells us that as well. Now, on top of that, many of the tariffs being imposed are actually much higher than the tariffs

we face from some of these other countries. For example, the charts released by the White House say that the EU places 39% tariffs on US goods. However, the World Trade Organization has the EU's average tariff rate at 2.7% as of 2023. Similarly, the American Enterprise Institute pointed out aspects of the administration's calculations like incorrect assumptions about import price elasticities, which it says led to an overestimation of tariffs placed on the United States by approximately a factor of four.

So because of all of this, critics argue that Trump's approach does not actually mirror the tariffs that other nations impose on US goods and therefore are not reciprocal. And in some cases, well surpass the tariff the United States is actually charged by these other countries. Now, I do wanna touch on one more thing.

The administration has been offering somewhat mixed messaging as to whether it's calling all new tariffs reciprocal or whether it's only considering those country-specific tariffs to be reciprocal. And I feel as if this is really contributing to this argument over whether the tariffs are in fact reciprocal or they're not reciprocal, because it's not clear which tier of tariffs the administration is calling reciprocal, right?

So this doesn't really change the arguments on either side at all, but it's still worth noting at the Rose Garden speech where President Trump announced the new tariffs, he differentiated between the 10% baseline tariffs and the country-specific tariffs. Here is what he said. Bangladesh is 74%. So you see what's going on. Pakistan, 58%. Sri Lanka, 88%.

So what we're doing is we're taking not the full, we could take the full 88 percent. Thanks a lot. He's doing a very good job. How's he doing? But you see the numbers, the numbers are so disproportionate, they're so unfair. At the same time, we will establish a minimum baseline tariff of 10 percent. You notice that on the chart? And that'll be on other countries to help rebuild our economy and to prevent cheating. Now, at the same time, many of the countries that don't place tariffs on the United States and are facing these 10% baseline tariffs nonetheless, like Australia, were listed on

the charts provided by the White House as having a 10% tariff on the United States, which is not the case. So the messaging has been a little confusing. I've talked to many of my friends in the political world and no one's really able to provide a clear cut answer. So I just figured I would mention it and give you something to think about. Last thing CNBC aired unconfirmed information this morning

when it reported that the administration is considering a 90 day pause on all tariffs. The CNBC banner said that according to White House economic adviser Kevin Hussett, President Trump was considering a 90-day tariff pause on all countries except China. Following that, a CNBC spokesperson said that information was unconfirmed, the White House has denied the report, and the press secretary called any reports of a tariff pause fake news. Now let's finish with some quick hitters. Earlier today, the Supreme Court denied a challenge to a recently enacted gun restriction

in New York, which in part, bans concealed firearms in sensitive locations and requires gun owners to show good moral character to obtain concealed carry license. Notably, the Supreme Court's rejection leaves in place a Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which upheld the two aforementioned provisions but struck down a prohibition on concealed firearms on private property that is generally open to the public, as well as a provision that requires people applying for concealed carry licenses to provide information about their social media accounts. Speaking of the Supreme Court, the justices put on hold an order by a federal judge that

would have required the Education Department to reinstate more than $65 million in grants. The opinion, left unsigned, said that the hold was justified because the government would not be able to get the funds back once they were dispersed and the recipients of the funds would not be permanently harmed while litigation continues. Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kagan, Justice Jackson, and Justice Sotomayor dissented. Justice Kagan said that the lawsuit showed that the termination of grants will force the plaintiffs to curtail teacher training programs Which the court which she says the court should have considered to be irreparable harm and therefore upheld the lower court's order

Two border inspectors in California have been charged with taking thousands of dollars in bribes to allow people to enter the United States without showing documentation the investigation began after migrant smugglers who were arrested last year told federal investigators that they had been working with border inspectors. Surveillance videos showed multiple instances of these officers waving vehicles through that were carrying people without documentation. Investigators also found phone evidence which showed the inspectors had exchanged messages with human traffickers in Mexico and discovered unexplained cash deposits in their bank accounts. In the last two years, there have been five U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers

in the San Diego area to face similar corruption charges, one of whom was sentenced to 23 years. Yesterday, the Texas Department of State Health Services reported the second measles death in the state. The child passed away Thursday from measles pulmonary failure. As of yesterday, there are 642 confirmed cases of measles across 22 states, with 499 of those cases in Texas. HHS Secretary Kennedy visited Texas over the weekend and met with affected families. He posted on X Yesterday writing that a CDC team was deployed to the state in March and has been redeployed as of this weekend. He noted that since March, the growth rates for new cases and hospitalizations have flattened

and that the most effective way to prevent the spread of measles is the MMR vaccine. Over the weekend, over 1,200 protests took place across all 50 states to rally against the Trump administration, doge tariffs, federal layoffs, and immigration reform. And last one, Elon Musk said he would like to see a zero-tariff situation between the United States and Europe. In speaking to Italy's right-leaning League Party, Musk said, quote, At the end of the day, I hope it's agreed that both Europe and the United States should move ideally in my view to a zero tariff solution. End quote. Musk also said that he's told President Trump that people should be free to either work in Europe or work in North America. That is what I

have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. I hope you have a fantastic next few days and I will talk to you again on Thursday.