UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (5/12/25): Suspending Habeas Corpus, the Qatari Government's $400M Gift, Mayor Arrested at ICE Facility, an Attempt to Lower Drug Prices, and More.

Episode Date: May 12, 2025

SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S ⁠FREE NEWSLETTER⁠. 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: Announcement from Jordan (0:00) Pope Leo XIV (Robert Francis Prevost) Becomes First American Pope (1:59) Encounter at ICE Facility in NJ Leads to Mayor's Arrest and Conflicting Stories of Assault (6:08) ACLU Attorneys Representing 2-Year-Old U.S. Citizen Removed From U.S. Voluntarily Dismisses Lawsuit (15:37) White House Says It's Considering Suspension of Habeas Corpus (18:16) First South African Refugees Enter U.S. Under Trump's New Refugee Program (24:45) Qatari Government to Donate Jumbo Jet to Be Used as Air Force One (28:31) Trump Signs Executive Order Aimed at Lowering Drug Prices; Is It Possible? (34:26) Supreme Court Will Soon Hear Arguments in Birthright Citizenship Case; Here's What You Need to Know (38:53) Quick Hitters: US/China Trade Deal, Last American Citizen Hostage Released, Diddy's Trial, Federal Officials Subpoena California Records (44:31) Critical Thinking Segment (46:56) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE 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

When does fast grocery delivery through Instacart matter most? When your famous grainy mustard potato salad isn't so famous without the grainy mustard. When the barbecue's lit, but there's nothing to grill. When the in-laws decide that, actually, they will stay for dinner. Instacart has all your groceries covered this summer, so download the app and get delivery in as fast as 60 minutes. Plus enjoy zero dollar delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees exclusions and terms apply. Instacart, groceries that over-deliver.

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is a Monday, May 12th. Let's talk about some news. I have two things to tell you first though. One is a reminder, the second is an announcement. The second is probably more important than the first,

so just stick around. As a reminder, tomorrow is Tuesday, which means another edition of my incredible newsletter. We'll be hitting inboxes at 6 a.m. Eastern time. So be sure to subscribe if you are not subscribed already. It's free, all you need is an email address. You'll get caught up on all the quick hitters in politics, pop culture, business, and health news. And you can find the link to subscribe in the show notes of this episode. The second thing is an announcement,

and that is this. Today will, unfortunately, be the last day of news episodes until the week of May 25th. I unfortunately have to get surgery later this week. I'm not looking forward to it, but it's going to be okay. And they say I will be out of commission for about a week and a half. However, don't worry. I will still have episodes for you. Over the course of the next week and a half, I'm going to be putting out a three-part series titled Everything You Need to Know About the Three Branches of the U.S. Government. So you won't actually be missing out on any episodes because I'll still be releasing episodes per the usual podcast schedule. They

will just be prerecorded and not based on current events. Instead based on, you know, there'll be educational episodes about the functions of the US government. When I've done this in the past, you guys have absolutely loved it. So I hope you love this new three-part series just as much. I will be covering the legislative branch this Thursday, the judicial branch on Monday, and then the executive branch next Thursday.

And then hopefully by the following Monday, I'll be back and ready to go. So yeah, that's that's my announcement with that out of the way. Let's get into today's episode. First story of the day, right after Thursday's episode went out, a new pope was elected. So let's talk about who he is and a little bit about what his politics are, or at least seem to be from the little that we do know, right? As I've said in the past, I don't typically touch on foreign affairs because it can be a pretty slippery slope,

but because so many of you requested that I talk about the conclave, which I did, I figured I would provide this update as well. So Robert Francis Prevost, who will go by Pope Leo XIV, became the 267th pope of the Roman Catholic Church. He made history by becoming the first American born pope. He was born on September 14th, 1955 in Chicago, Illinois,

the south side of Chicago to be exact. He received his bachelor of science in mathematics from Villanova University in 1977 and a master of Divinity from the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago in 1982. Now, I do want to just stop for a second and say there are a lot of words, so I'm not Catholic, okay? And I have touched up on all of my pronunciation ahead of this story. I just want to know if I just messed something up, please don't come for me. I really did try to get all of my pronunciation down before doing this story, but like I'm only human. I may

make a mistake, okay? So Pope Leo pursued advanced studies in canon law at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome. He obtained a licensure in 1984 and a doctorate in 1987. In 1985, he began his missionary service in Peru and again returned to Peru in 1988, spending a decade as head of the Augustinian Seminary, professor at the Diocesan Seminary, judicial vicar, and parish priest in impoverished areas. His work focused on pastoral care, education, and social justice. He was eventually elected as prior general of the Order of St. Augustine in 2001, a position he held for roughly 12 years until 2013, and after completing his term he returned to the United States serving as the director of the Augustinian Formation House in Chicago. In 2014, Pope Francis appointed him as apostolic administrator of the diocese of of Chiclayo, Peru and titular bishop of Sufar. Pope Leo was consecrated on

December 12, 2024 and became the bishop of Cicleo in 2015. In January 2023, Pope Francis appointed Pope Leo as prefect of the Dicastery for bishops and in that position, he oversaw the selection of bishops worldwide and was made a cardinal later that year. So following the death of Pope Francis on April 21st, a conclave of 133 cardinals convened, as we talked about last week, and on May 8th, after four rounds of voting, Robert Francis Prevost was elected pope, taking the name Pope Leo XIV. As for his politics, he has been characterized as a moderate progressive, upholding traditional Catholic doctrines while advocating for social justice. He's expressed opposition to things like

abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, and gender ideology in schools, aligning with core church teachings. He emphasizes compassion and inclusivity, particularly concerning immigration and climate change. His choice of the name Leo pays homage to Pope Leo XIII, known for championing workers' rights and social justice. Social justice has been a theme throughout Pope Leo's entire life. A few fun facts about Pope Leo are that he is a Chicago White Sox fan, he loves to play wordle with his brother, he's met three popes, so Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis. He has a creole ancestry in New

Orleans. And then finally, he watched the movie Conclave right before his own Conclave. And if you still haven't seen it, I did recommend it to you guys last week. If you still haven't seen it, I still recommend that you watch it. Switching gears a bit to some immigration-related matters here at home, on Friday, the DHS said that three lawmakers and the mayor of Newark, New Jersey, quote unquote, stormed an ICE facility known as Delaney Hall Detention Center. This encounter led to the Newark mayor's arrest

and conflicting stories from both sides. So let's talk about this. US House Democrats, LaMonica McIver, Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez plus Newark's mayor showed up to the ICE detention facility as part of a group of protesters that had assembled outside the security gates of the facility. The protest took place after Newark politicians alleged that the facility was inhumanely housing migrants without proper permitting, plumbing, electricity, and fire codes. According to the DHS press release, Congresswoman Watson Coleman and Congressman

Menendez then joined protesters in making it past the security gate. And the press release says that the two, quote, broke into the detention facility, end quote, by chasing a bus of detainees entering the gate and continuing into the facility itself. According to a post by Congresswoman Watson Coleman, though, the lawmakers were there to exercise their oversight authority as members of Congress. So here is what we know about the lawmakers authority to be there. A CNN report said that under the annual appropriations act, which is an annual bill passed by Congress that designates the distribution of federal funds to federal agencies,

lawmakers are allowed to enter any facility operated by or for the DHS, which is used to detain or otherwise house aliens, and that members of Congress are not required to provide prior notice of the intent to enter a facility in their capacity to conduct oversight. Now, I read the actual annual appropriations bill for you, because as I always say,

it's really easy to read these articles, right? The hard part is actually reading the bill. And oftentimes these laws are not written in a way that, you know, it's not easy to understand. That's just the bill. And oftentimes these laws are not written in a way that, you know, it's not easy to understand. That's just the reality. So here's what the law actually says. And this is not to say that CNN is wrong. I just want you to have the actual verbiage

because if we know anything about the law, it is that laws can be interpreted in many, many ways. And that is the purpose of the judiciary, which we will get into more into in the three-part series that I will be releasing over the next week and a half. So this annual appropriations bill says this quote, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to DHS may be used to prevent any of the following persons from entering for the purpose of conducting oversight any facility operated by or for the DHS used to detain or otherwise house aliens." Then right below that, the law says,

nothing in this section may be construed to require a member of Congress to provide prior notice of their intent to enter a facility described above for the purpose of conducting oversight, but DHS may require that a request be made at least 24 hours in advance of an intent to enter a facility." End quote. So the questions here really are as follows. Were the lawmakers there to conduct oversight? Did DHS have a 24-hour notice requirement? If so, was notice given? And then also, what happens, if anything, when lawmakers show up with protesters as part of a coordinated effort, coordinated protesting effort with the public rather than showing up by themselves? Does that change anything as far as legalities go? So based on the text of the law, these are the questions

that should be answered. According to a spokesperson for Congresswoman Watson based on the text of the law, these are the questions that should be answered. According to a spokesperson for Congresswoman Watson Coleman, the group of lawmakers had been granted access to enter and inspect the facility between 3 and 4 p.m. on Friday. But as you'll hear in a few minutes, Congressman Menendez said the facility did not know they were going to be there. So that's another thing that we don't really have definitive answers on. Now, another thing I wanna highlight is that the appropriations law only applies to members of Congress, not Newark's mayor. So this could explain why the mayor and only the mayor

was ultimately arrested, but DHS has not confirmed this to be the reason. Despite the mayor's lack of authorization to be at the facility or inside the facility, he defended himself by saying this, quote, I didn't go there to break any laws. I didn't break any laws. I was there as the mayor of the city, exercising my right and duty as an elected official, you know, supporting our congresspeople, preparing for a press conference that was supposed to happen there."

Following the encounter and in response to the lawmakers' claims of concern about the facility and its detention of migrants, DHS officials said that this particular facility holds, quote, murderers, terrorists, child rapists, and MS-13 gang members. End quote. DHS has alleged that they have body camera footage showing members of Congress, meaning the three members that showed up on Friday, assaulting ICE officers and quote body slamming a female ICE officer. End quote. DHS posted a video of Congresswoman MacIver engaging with law enforcement captioned watch. US Congresswoman LaMonica MacIver storms the gate of Delaney Hall

Detention Center assaulting an ICE agent. In the video, McIver can be seen pushing her way through a crowd, though she's also getting pushed at the same time by someone behind her. At one point, she is seen raising her arm and punching the back of an ICE officer's shoulder. It's hard to see exactly what is transpiring in the video because it is a pretty chaotic scene and there's really only one angle of everything, at least from what the DHS posted, but I do of course have that video linked for you in the sources section

of this episode if you want to see it for yourself. Assistant Secretary of DHS Trisha McLaughlin criticized the lawmakers for endangering law enforcement officers and wrote quote members of Congress storming into a detention facility goes beyond a bizarre political stunt and puts the safety of our law enforcement agents and detainees at risk members of Congress are not above the law and cannot illegally break into detention facilities and quote she also said quote had these members requested a tour we would have facilitated a tour of the facility and quote appearing on Fox McLaughlin said quote if it was a typical US citizen and quote, had these members requested a tour, we would have facilitated a tour of the facility." End quote. Appearing on Fox, McLaughlin said, quote, if it was a typical U.S. citizen and they

tried to storm into a detention facility that's housing dangerous criminals or any person at all, they would have been arrested. Just because you are a member of Congress or just because you're a public official does not mean you are above the law. Contrary to that claim though, we know after reviewing the law that lawmakers do have certain oversight rules not afforded to private U.S. citizens. So keep that in mind. McLaughlin also said that, quote, arrests are still on the table for this as the ongoing investigation seeks to determine whether law enforcement officers were assaulted by the lawmakers. The lawmakers have given a different account as we know. So Congresswoman Watson Coleman responded to the description of the incident as stated in

the DHS press release calling it a lie. She said quote, the description is false in every way imaginable. The notion that I or any of my colleagues body-slammed armed federal officers is absurd. DHS is lying because they know their agents were out of line. They have to resort to lies because their conduct is indefensible on the merits. They can threaten us all they like, but their lies are still lies. We will not be intimidated." Watson Coleman also said, contrary to a press statement put out by DHS, we did not storm the detention center. The author of the press release was so unfamiliar with the facts on the grounds that they didn't even correctly count the number of representatives present."

Congressman Menendez responded to the DHS's statement saying, "...we have the right to conduct oversight on an unannounced basis. It's a right that members of Congress have. They did not know that we were going to be there, but we announced ourselves. They asked us to wait. We obliged. We waited an hour and a half." Menendez added that the description in the DHS press release is, "...false in every way possible. The real thing they should be responding to is the fact that an ICE agent put his hands on two female members of Congress. If they're looking to have law and order and accountability, they should have answers to that. Trying to spin this and gaslight the American people will not stand." End quote. So the

lawmakers claim that they were the ones mishandled by officers at the ICE facility, which contradicts DHS and McLaughlin's account that lawmakers may have assaulted ICE officers, you know, and specifically the DHS account that lawmakers may have assaulted ICE officers, you know, and specifically the DHS account that Congresswoman MacGyver specifically assaulted an ICE agent. MacGyver did write on X that she and Watson Coleman were shoved and manhandled and made these claims again later in a press conference in which she reported

that she was quote assaulted by multiple ICE officers while regional directors of ICE watched it happen. Again, I do have that body cam footage linked for you in the sources section of this episode, if you're interested in watching it, but per usual, a lot of conflicting storylines here, that is what we know at this point. Let's take our first break here when I come back,

we'll talk about some more immigration related matters, including the administration looking into suspending habeas corpus, what that means and more. I am going to take a chance and guess that you might be overdue for either your annual skin check, your annual physical, or maybe some routine blood work. We tend to not follow up on these things because it's just such a pain, truly,

between finding a doctor, finding a time that works, figuring out the insurance of it all. None of us want to deal with that, but that is why I'm so excited to have ZocDoc as a sponsor of today's episode. I might actually be ZocDoc's number one fan. I absolutely love what they've done. ZocDoc is a free app and website where you can search

and compare high quality in-network doctors and click to instantly book an appointment. So a few months ago, I had something come up that was worrying me a little bit and I wanted to get it checked as soon as possible. My primary care doctor tends to not have openings for a few months ago, I had something come up that was worrying me a little bit and I wanted to get it checked as soon As possible my primary care doctor tends to not have openings for a few weeks. So I went on Zoc talk I put the I put in the issue I was having my city and my insurance plan and just like that

I had a list of doctors with their availability and their ratings right there in front of me and it felt really good knowing That the list I was looking at, you know, all of those doctors were within my network. I am big on taking care of your health and not letting things go unchecked, so ZocDoc really means so much to me. In fact, I had a podcast listener recently reach out thanking me for putting them on to ZocDoc because it made things so easy for them and that meant everything to me because I just think we should all prioritize our health a little more and if, you know, it's easier to do, that's awesome.

So stop putting off those doctor's appointments and go to zocdoc.com slash unbiased to find and instantly book a top rated doctor today. That is zocdoc.com slash unbiased. Zocdoc.com slash unbiased. podcast are great because they help us make the most out of our routine. We learn about the fall of the Ottoman Empire while we drive, keep up with news while we take the dog for a walk, or turn folding laundry into a comedy show.

Make the most out of your time with the PC Insider's World's Elite MasterCard, a credit card that can get you unlimited free grocery delivery and the most PC optimum points on everyday purchases. The PC Insider's World Elite MasterCard, the card for living unlimited. Conditions apply to all benefits. Visit pcfinancial.ca for details. Welcome back. Some more immigration related news. This one is an update to a story from a couple of weeks ago.

You might remember a couple of weeks back, we talked about that story where two mothers were deported and sent back to their home country with their U.S. citizen children who ranged in age from two to seven years old. Well following that, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against DHS for wrongfully deporting the two-year-old U.S. citizen child. So this was two separate families when I originally reported on it, right? One mom was deported with her two-year-old child, the other mom was deported with her two-year-old child, the other mom was deported with her four-year-old and seven-year-old. So the ACLU's lawsuit was filed on behalf of the one two-year-old child. And in that lawsuit, the ACLU alleged the child

was wrongfully deported because remember, as a U.S. citizen, you cannot be deported. The government though maintained that the child was not deported. Instead, the child was removed with its mother who had requested that she be able to take her child with her. The DHS also clarified that a proper parent or guardian could bring the child back to the U.S. so long as the parent or guardian was a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States. The latest update in this situation came on Friday. The ACLU voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against the government with the lawyer for the family,

Gracie Willis, saying that the families were taking time to think about their choices and focus on their children's health and safety. The attorney's statement said in part, quote, given the traumatizing experiences the families have been through, they are taking a step back to have full discussions about all their options,

the safety and wellbeing of their children and the best ways to proceed so the harms they have suffered can be fully addressed. End quote. Willis also characterized the claims that the child was not deported as misleading and disingenuous. She said from what she was told by her client, the mother was told by ICE officers, quote, your children will be deported with you. Willis

also addressed a handwritten note that was filed by the government in the case, which the government says was voluntarily written by the mother and says that she will bring her child with her. Willis, the family's attorney says the decision to write that note was not a decision made by the mother but a statement she was told to write. In response to this voluntary dismissal, Assistant DHS Secretary Trisha McLaughlin said, quote, the ACLU dropped its lawsuit on the false claims that DHS deported a U.S. citizen. The truth is and has always been that the mother, who is in the country illegally, chose to bring her two-year-old with her two Honduras when she was removed. The narrative that DHS

is deporting American children is false and irresponsible." End quote. Okay, moving on, one of the biggest storylines of the week is that the Trump administration is considering suspending habeas corpus. Let's talk about this because I'm sure a lot of you have a lot of questions, you know, about what this means and why we're even talking about it potentially even what habeas corpus is. On Friday, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said the administration is, quote, actively looking at, end quote, the possibility of suspending habeas corpus in the context of the deportations of illegal immigrants. So first, what is habeas corpus? Habeas corpus is a legal procedure that allows people to challenge the lawfulness of their detention. Keep in mind, habeas corpus is not specific to immigration. So prisoners use habeas corpus to challenge their convictions or challenge their

sentences. They argue that their imprisonment is unlawful. So it's a challenge that can be used by anyone in detention. In this case though, the administration is considering suspending the procedure specifically for illegal immigrants on the basis that there is an invasion and we'll get into that more in a minute. But first I want to say we kind of heard President Trump talk about his rationale for this in a minute. But first I want to say we kind of heard President Trump talk about his rationale for this in a recent interview with ABC or not ABC, NBC's Kristen Welker. So he was asked by Welker whether he understands that all people in the United States, regardless of citizenship status, are afforded due process. And he said, well, I don't know that. And

you know, I'm going to leave that for the lawyers to sort out. But he also said there are millions and millions of people that don't have a legal right to be here that he wants to deport and it wouldn't make sense to give all of them the right to challenge the removal because that would take decades. So that gave us a little glimpse into why the administration is looking at this potential idea of suspending habeas corpus

because without habeas corpus, those in the country illegally wouldn't have a right to challenge the lawfulness of their detention. Now to give you a little background, habeas corpus was introduced in very early America by James Madison and it's been recognized by the Supreme Court. In fact, it's in the Constitution. We'll talk about that more in a minute too. The Supreme Court has said that the writ of habeas corpus is the quote, fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action, end quote.

The Supreme Court also said it quote, must be administered with the initiative and flexibility essential to ensure that miscarriages of justice within its reach are surfaced and corrected." End quote. In addition to the Supreme Court precedent, habeas corpus has roots in the Constitution, specifically in the suspension clause. Now what the suspension clause says is this. It says, the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus

shall not be suspended unless, when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it. Now one issue is that despite the inclusion of this suspension clause in the Constitution, the clause does not specify which branch of government holds the power to actually suspend habeas corpus. It's long been assumed, though, that the power belongs to Congress, and there's a couple of reasons for this. One, because most of the other clauses in the same section of the Constitution are directed

at Congress. But also, two, because throughout history, the only four suspensions of habeas corpus were authorized by Congress. In fact, during the Civil War, which was the first suspension of habeas corpus, President Lincoln suspended it himself, unilaterally as the president, and he got a lot of pushback for it. And that pushback ultimately led to Lincoln seeking congressional approval.

And since then, congressional approval has been given every time habeas corpus has been suspended. On the other side of the argument though, you have the fact that the Constitution does not explicitly say which branch of government holds the power, which could mean that the framers didn't intend to give the power to any one particular branch. In fact, at the first Constitutional Convention, the first proposal of a suspending authority expressly vested the suspending power in the legislature. However, the author of that proposal did not keep that same language

when the matter was taken up and the clause was ultimately adopted without express legislative authority. So does this mean the framers intended for the authority to actually belong to other branches of government and not just the legislature? We don't know, but it begs the question, can President Trump attempt to unilaterally suspend habeas corpus like Lincoln once tried to do?

Per usual, different sides argue different things, right? The Trump administration highlights the fact that, again, the suspension clause, you know, doesn't expressly vest suspending power in the legislature and the fact that the suspension clause specifically states that habeas corpus can be suspended during times of invasion, which the administration says is currently applicable to the immigration situation in the United States. As we know, the president used the same rationale in issuing his March executive order, which invoked the Alien Enemies Act. in issuing his March executive order, which invoked the Alien Enemies Act. Stephen Miller, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, said that whether this justification will stand in allowing a suspension of habeas corpus to proceed

will be determined by whether the courts, quote, do the right thing or not. End quote. In other words, if the courts don't allow the administration to continue with its expedited deportation efforts, that's when the administration would consider suspending habeas corpus. Certain legal experts have criticized the administration over this strategy and have pointed out that only Congress can suspend habeas corpus per the Constitution and per precedent. According to Georgetown Law Center professor Steve Vladeck, quote, Trump is suggesting that the administration would

unlawfully suspend habeas corpus if it disagrees with how the courts rule in these cases. In other words, it's not the judicial review itself that's imperiling national security, it's the possibility that the government might lose. That's not and has never been a viable argument for suspending habeas corpus, end quote.

Vladeck also called Miller's comments factually and legally nuts. Some legal experts worry that approval for the Trump administration to carry out this action of suspension would result in a shift in the balance of power, placing the executive above the legislature and the courts. Okay, final immigration related story of the day. Well, I guess until we

get to the birthright citizenship case, but final immigration story for now. Yesterday, the first South African refugees arrived in the United States under the president's new South Africa specific refugee program. In February, President Trump issued an executive order titled Addressing Aggregious Actions of the Republic of South America. This order was issued in response to South Africa's recent enactment of a law called Expropriation Act 13 of 2024. It allows the South African government to seize agricultural property that is owned by ethnic minority Afrikaners without compensation. Per Trump's executive order, the United States is not to provide aid or assistance to South Africa,

and two, will promote the resettlement of Afrikaner refugees, escaping what it calls government-sponsored race-based discrimination, including racially discriminatory property confiscation. A couple of things to note here. So one, South Africa's affirmative action policies are meant to correct historical inequality under apartheid by targeting white people. This is something the administration says fosters reverse racism.

Two, no land has actually been confiscated under this new South African law, but Afrikaners have concerns that it will happen down the road. The Trump administration along with South African-born Elon Musk argued that white Afrikaners are facing persecution through violent farm attacks and a lack of government protection. Notably, while farm-related violence has long been a concern in South Africa, it does affect both white and black rural communities. Whites, however, say that the government is failing to protect them. These concerns have played

a big factor in their eligibility for refugee status in the United States. However, these specific criteria and application process have not been made public. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said the treatment of Afrikaners in South Africa, quote, fits the textbook definition of why the refugee program was created, end quote, emphasizing that it qualifies as, quote, persecution based on a protected characteristic, in this case, race, end quote. Now, the South African government has denied claims of persecution against white Afrikaners, calling them, quote, completely false and based on misinformation.

It argues that Afrikaners, who are the descendants of Dutch and French colonial settlers, are among the wealthiest and most successful people in the country, making them some of the most economically privileged citizens. With a population of 2.7 million Afrikaners out of the 62 million total South Africans, many in the country are thrown off by these refugee claims given Afrikaners' prominent status. Although the South African government has stated

there was no valid reason for the relocation, it said that it would not prevent those that want to leave and respects their right to choose. One other criticism that the Trump administration is facing in light of the South African refugee program is that it has sped up the refugee application process for white South Africans while simultaneously pausing some of the other refugee programs like those enacted during the Biden administration for, you know, people in countries like Venezuela and Honduras, as well as individuals in Afghanistan and Sub-Saharan Africa.

So that's what's going on with the South African refugees. That's why they arrived in the United States yesterday. We don't know how many have applied for or have been granted refugee status as part of this particular program, but apparently some reports are saying tens of thousands have expressed interest. Next story, is the administration being gifted a jumbo jet by the Qatari government? According to the press secretary, the answer is yes, so long as it's legal. So over the weekend, reports started coming in that the royal family of Qatar was gifting President Trump a jumbo jet to be used as Air Force One.

It's reportedly a $400 million Boeing 747-8, which will be first sent to the US Air Force to be modified in compliance with military specifications. And then at some point before January 1, 2029, which is right before Trump's last day in office, the plane will be transferred to the Trump Presidential Library Foundation, similar to Reagan's plane, which was decommissioned and currently sits on display at Reagan's Presidential Library in California. Keep in mind, the current planes that are used as Air Force One are two Boeing 747-200 jumbo jets that have been operational since 1990.

The contract to replace the planes has been repeatedly delayed. And last year, Boeing provided an estimate and said that the new planes wouldn't be ready until after Trump leaves office in 2029, although a more recent estimate shows more like 2027. Now since the initial reports came out about this jet, we've experienced a bit of whiplash. ABC News originally reported that the jet was meant to have been announced as a gift next week when Trump visits Qatar, but a senior White House official then denied that claim. Yesterday, similarly, Qatar called the reports of it gifting a plane to the US

government inaccurate. But then today, press secretary Caroline Levitt confirmed the gift. When she was asked about the gift today about the plane specifically, Levitt said, quote, the Qatari government has graciously offered to donate a plane to the Department of Defense. The legal details that are of that are still being worked out. But of course, any donation to this government is always done in full compliance with the law and we commit ourselves to the utmost transparency and we will continue to do that." End quote. When asked whether the Qatari government is possibly doing this so they can get something from the president in return, Levitt said no because the Qatari government knows that President Trump acts with the American

people's interests in mind only. When President Trump himself was asked about the plane this morning, he said he would be stupid to turn down the offer. He also said, quote, if we can get a 747 as a contribution to our Defense Department to use during a couple of years while they're building the other ones, I think that was a very nice gesture. End quote. So this implies that the president would serve, not the president, the plane would serve as a temporary Air Force One plane and then once the planes from Boeing are ready, the Qatari plane would be transferred to the Trump Presidential Library Foundation where it would remain. But keep

in mind, no details have been finalized at this time. Now, critics have raised questions about legality and ethics. For one, the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution says that no person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall accept any present emolument, office, or title of any kind from any foreign entity without the consent of Congress. In other words, federal officeholders cannot receive gifts, payments, anything valuable from a foreign state or its rulers without approval from Congress. The whole point of the clause is to preserve the independence of the president or other officeholders from outside influence. Now Trump is no stranger to emoluments challenges. He

faced many lawsuits in his first term over alleged violations. However, in 2021 the Supreme Court brought those cases to an end, finding them moot because Trump was no longer president. Congress has also tried to step in to this emoluments issue and pass laws that prohibit the president specifically from accepting foreign gifts and money without congressional authorization. But both times the bills failed to pass.

And if you're thinking to yourself, wait, I thought you just said that the emoluments clause already requires congressional approval. Yes, but there was a fight in the courts over whether the president is considered a federal officeholder. So just to clear up any confusion, Congress tried to pass these laws, which would have said, regardless of the terminology used in the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, the president needs congressional approval before accepting gifts from foreign entities. Obviously, in the past, we president needs congressional approval before accepting gifts from foreign

entities. Obviously, in the past, we know all presidents have received foreign gifts. In fact, the very desk that the president sit at in the Oval Office was gifted by Queen Victoria in 1880. So here's the thing. Under law, foreign gifts that are valued at less than $480 can be retained by federal employees. They can keep them. Anything over that amount is considered a gift to the people of the United States,

and it must be logged and then disposed of by the White House Gift Unit. Most gifts, though, are transferred to the National Archives or to the President's Future Presidential Library, which acts as an archive of the president's administration. That's allowed too. If a president does take a gift, they can keep it for their own personal use so long as they pay fair market value for it. But to be clear, the criticism in this case

is mostly because of the price of the plane and how expensive it is compared to most gifts that are given to presidents gifts that are given to presidents and have been given to presidents in the past. But to wrap this up from a legal standpoint, it would seem as if the Qatari government can gift the plane to be used as Air Force One. However, once Trump leaves office, the plane would either have to sit at his presidential library as he has suggested, or if he wanted to to keep it he'd have to pay fair market value for it once his time in the Oval Office is done. The White House though has said that the

legal aspects of this are still being worked out. All right let's take our second and final break here. When we come back we'll talk about the new drug pricing executive order, the birthright citizenship arguments that are upcoming on Thursday and more. Welcome back. This morning, President Trump sent an executive order aimed at bringing drug prices down. Again, this is something the president also tried to do in 2020, but let's talk about what this new order says and any effects that it may or may not have. Remember, an executive order is a directive for federal officials and federal agencies. Executive orders lay out a purpose and a policy

and then directives for federal officials and federal agents to carry it, not agents, agencies, to carry out that purpose and or policy. In this particular order, the purpose is to end the quote, egregious imbalance, quote, that exists between global pharmaceutical profits and the United States population. In other words, the United States has less than 5% of the world's population and yet funds three-fourths of the global pharmaceutical profits. The president says the inflated prices in the US fuel global innovation while foreign health systems get a free ride. The

policy reads, quote, Americans should not be forced to subsidize low cost prescription drugs and biologics in other developed countries and face overcharges for the same products in the United States. Americans must therefore have access to the most favored nation price for these products. End quote. So in accordance with that rationale, the order sets forth multiple directives. First, the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative are to take all necessary and appropriate action to ensure that foreign countries are not engaging in acts or practices that may be unreasonable or discriminatory and may have the effect of forcing American patients to

pay for a disproportionate amount of global pharmaceutical research and development. Second, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to the extent consistent with law, is to facilitate direct-to-consumer purchasing programs for pharmaceutical manufacturers that sell their products to American patients at the most favored nation price. Now there is a bit of a legality issue with that one and we'll get there in a second. First I wanna talk about the third directive

which is that within 30 days of the order, the HHS secretary is to give pharmaceutical manufacturers the most favored nation price targets. The order says that if significant progress is not delivered other actions will be taken and the order lists what those other actions will be. I'm not going to go through all of them but they include a rulemaking plan, certification to Congress, etc. Now the legal issue I was talking about before is this. Federal law currently prohibits drug

manufacturers from selling prescription drugs directly to consumers. Many laws do, actually, but I will give you one example. So the Prescription Drug Marketing Act says that prescription drugs must be distributed through authorized distributors of record, which are entities registered with the FDA and subject to specific oversight. Because consumers are not authorized distributors or licensed entities under the law, the PDMA prohibits direct to consumer sales. To enable direct to consumer sales,

the HHS secretary would need to either issue regulations or seek certain exemptions that would allow these direct to consumer purchases. But currently under law, direct to consumer purchases. But currently under law, direct to consumer drug sales are prohibited and executive orders cannot supersede federal law. Notably, the order does not specify which drugs will be impacted,

though some reports are saying it would be drugs covered by Medicare Part B. The pharmaceutical industry has criticized the order saying it's a bad deal for American patients. The president of pharmaceutical research and manufacturers of America said in part, quote, importing foreign prices will cut billions of dollars for Medicare with no guarantee that it helps patients or improves their access to medicines. It jeopardizes the hundreds of billions our member companies are planning

to invest in America, making us more reliant on China for innovative medicines." End quote. Importantly, when Trump attempted to do this in 2020, industry leaders put forth a similar argument that these methods would give foreign governments an upper hand in deciding how much people pay in the United States. So we'll have to see what real world effects this order has and whether it even survives scrutiny considering Trump's first attempt to do this was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2021. This attempt is a little different than the first attempt though, so we will see.

Okay, so for this last story, I actually want to get ahead of things since I won't be around on Thursday to talk about it. This Thursday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the birthright citizenship case. Now I want to go through the core birthright citizenship issue,, I want to go through, you know, the core birthright citizenship issue, but I want to highlight the fact that what is really at issue right now is the legality of nationwide injunctions, not the constitutional issue of birthright citizenship. In other words, the Supreme Court probably won't decide the constitutionality of Trump's birthright citizenship plan following arguments on Thursday.

So my purpose with this story is to set you up for when those arguments happen on Thursday. And we'll start to see these outlets releasing these headlines about which way the justices seem to be leaning, but that this way, now that you're caught up, even though I won't be here with a new episode, you'll know exactly what's at issue here and what the arguments are on both sides of the debate.

So let's start with the core constitutional issue of this case, which is birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship, as we know it today, means that so long as you are born on US soil, you automatically become a US citizen. The citizenship status of your parents is irrelevant. This is part of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, and what the 14th Amendment says is this, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Now the Supreme Court back in 1897 said that this clause should be interpreted to mean

that those born on US oil are entitled to US citizenship President Trump signed an executive order in the beginning of his presidency that essentially said in order to be afforded birthright citizenship One parent must either be a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States The argument is that because the 14th amendment says all people born in the United States are entitled to citizenship as long as they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, if neither parent is a lawful resident or citizen and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, the child cannot automatically become a citizen. So Trump argues that those born here without at least one parent with US citizenship or lawful permanent residency

are not automatically entitled to birthright citizenship because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Now the argument on the other side of that is that everyone in this country, regardless of citizenship status, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States so long as they are on US soil.

It's why we can arrest non-citizens. It's why we can convict non-citizens of crimes, et cetera. But that is the debate at the core of this case. However, since litigation started, the issue has evolved. So following the issuance of the executive order, three federal judges issued injunctions to stop the order from being implemented nationwide. Three federal judges blocked the order from being implemented anywhere in the United

States. The administration requested these orders be lifted from three different appeals courts but was denied each time. So what the administration did is they took these injunctions to the Supreme Court arguing that nationwide injunctions to the Supreme Court, arguing that nationwide injunctions exceed the authority of the district courts. Keep in mind district courts are the lowest level of federal courts. Now I've talked about this before, but this is something that many presidents have taken issue with, including presidents Obama and Biden.

Presidents don't like these nationwide injunctions because they prohibit them from taking executive action. In their eyes, you know, it's one thing to ban executive actions as they pertain to the particular plaintiffs that filed the lawsuit, but that it's outside the scope of the judiciary's authority to ban executive actions nationwide. Supporters of nationwide injunctions, however, argue that sometimes they're the only reasonable way to address government actions that are potentially unlawful. So in this particular case, the administration is asking the Supreme Court to lift the injunctions that have been placed upon it and instead limit the injunctions to the specific

plaintiffs that have filed suit against it. Either that or more broadly decide that district courts do not have the authority to issue these nationwide injunctions. To be clear, the Supreme Court has not specified which questions it will answer so we don't know for sure what it will do here. Once arguments are done later this week, the court's ruling could be as narrow as only deciding whether these three particular nationwide injunctions will be limited in scope or the Supreme Court could issue a broader ruling that actually decides whether federal courts even have this authority

at all to issue these nationwide injunctions. I do not see a world in which the Supreme Court is deciding the core constitutional issue of this case right now. However, once the Supreme Court releases its decision surrounding the issue of nationwide injunctions, the core constitutional issue of birthright citizenship will continue to play out in the appellate courts, and then once an appeals court eventually rules on the constitutional question of birthright citizenship, that is when the losing party will then take this case to the Supreme Court and the justices can decide whether they want to take up

the birthright citizenship issue. So to be very, very clear, the decision that we get from the Supreme Court in the next month or two, following oral arguments on Thursday, will pertain to the procedural issue of nationwide injunctions, not the constitutional issue of birthright citizenship. Okay now for some quick hitters. First the US-China trade deal. We don't know too much about

the deal and the deal has not been finalized yet so I thought it would be better just to include this as a quick hitter rather than a full story. Yesterday the United States and China announced a truce in their trade war following talks in Geneva over the weekend. Per the terms of the tentative deal, tariffs will be reduced for a 90-day period. The United States will reportedly drop its tariffs on China from 145% to 30%, and China will cut its tariffs on the United States from 125% to 10%. Essentially, both countries will cut their tariffs by 115%. Tariffs imposed on

China before April 2nd, as well as some other restrictions that the United States has on China, will still be in effect. This includes additional tariffs on electric cars, steel, and aluminum. China has also committed to removing non-tariff countermeasures imposed against the United States since April 2nd. This includes countermeasures like adding rare earth minerals to its controlled export list, opening an anti-dumping probe into DuPont's China business and blacklisting some US defense and tech firms. According to both China and the United States,

these trade war discussions will continue with both sides recognizing the importance of finding a middle ground. Next, 21-year-old Adon Alexander has reportedly been freed as the last remaining American Israeli citizen being held by Hamas. Alexander is said to be one of two dozen hostages believed to still be alive and according to Israeli officials the bodies of four other Americans are still in Gaza. Opening statements in Sean Diddy Combs' trial started today after finalization of the jury.

Combs is accused of being the ringleader of an alleged enterprise that abused, threatened, and coerced women into prolonged drug-fueled sexual orgies with male prostitutes, which he called freak-offs, and then threatening the women to stay silent. Combs says all sex was consensual and that he was simply part of the swinger lifestyle. The DHS issued subpoenas to the government of California today seeking records related

to alleged disbursements of federal funds to illegal immigrants. The subpoenas target the state's cash assistance program for immigrants, which provides monthly cash benefits to aged, blind and disabled noncitizens who are ineligible for federal supplemental security income. The White House believes the program provides benefits to illegal immigrants who cannot access social security benefits. And finally, let's finish with some critical thinking

for today's critical thinking segment. Let's revisit the potential suspension of habeas corpus. Remember, this segment is not meant to be too difficult. It's not meant to stump you. It is just meant to challenge your opinions and get you thinking a little bit deeper about certain issues. So first and foremost, how do you feel

about the potential suspension of habeas corpus? Are you against it or for it for purposes of immigration and why? Second, would your position change if Congress approved the suspension? Why or why not? If you support the suspension, are you comfortable letting the executive branch act without checks from Congress or the courts, especially when the Constitution doesn't clearly and expressly

give it that power? And second, how would you ensure innocent people are not swept up into these mass deportations or detentions if we remove their right to challenge their confinement? Mistakes are made, that's not up for debate. So how would you rectify those situations? Now, if you are against the suspension, ask yourself whether undocumented immigrants who knowingly enter the country illegally

should have the same access to legal protections as citizens or legal residents. And then consider this, if millions of people are in the United States illegally and each one has to get a court hearing before being deported, does that essentially make it impossible to enforce immigration laws and ultimately end up letting people stay simply because the system is too overwhelmed. And this goes for supporters and opponents. I want you to answer why whenever you answer one of those questions. Why do you feel that way? Why are you answering the way that you're answering? That is what I have for you today. I hope you enjoyed today's episode since it's gonna be a minute

until I'm back again with another news update. So just as a reminder, the next three episodes will consist of a three-part series which will teach you everything you need to know about the United States government and how it functions. I highly, highly, highly recommend tuning into all of those episodes. You will be so much more informed once you do. Since I'll only be releasing pre-recorded episodes for the next week and a half, have a great next couple of weeks and I'll be back before you know it.