UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (5/27/25): What's in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act? PLUS the Plans for a 'Golden Dome,' Trump's New Air Force One, Pause on the Penny, and More.

Episode Date: May 27, 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: Former President Biden Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer; Here's What His Diagnosis Means (1:17) Defense Dept. Officially Accepts Qatari Plane for Air Force One; Here's What the Refit Project May Cost (3:56) Trump Announces New 'Golden Dome' Missile Defense System (6:37) DOJ Drops Police Reform Agreements with Louisville and Minneapolis (9:24) Treasury Dept. to Stop Circulating Pennies by 2026 (14:43) Supreme Court Ties 4-4 in Religious Charter School Case; Here's What That Means (17:24) Boeing and Government Reached THIRD Agreement in 4 Years to Avoid 737 Max Trial; Will the Judge Accept It? (20:43) DHS Revokes Harvard's Ability to Enroll International Students; Court Intervenes (25:39) Make America Healthy Again Commission Releases First Health Report Per President's Orders (29:27) One Big Beautiful Bill Act; Here's What's In It (33:14) Quick Hitters: Lawmaker Indicted, EU Tariffs Postponed, Hegseth Puts Restrictions on Reporters, 500% Sanctions on Russian Oil Buyers, US Steel Partnership (46:35) 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

What's better than a well-marbled ribeye sizzling on the barbecue? A well-marbled ribeye sizzling on the barbecue that was carefully selected by an Instacart shopper and delivered to your door. A well-marbled ribeye you ordered without even leaving the kiddie pool. Whatever groceries your summer calls for, Instacart has you covered. Download the Instacart app and enjoy $0 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 Tuesday, May 27th. Let's talk about some news. So a couple of notes before we get into today's episode. Yesterday was of course a federal holiday so I waited to release the episode until today. But despite releasing the episode a day late, I'm actually not going to cover any news from yesterday so anything that happened on Monday will just be included in Thursday's episode. Along similar lines, today's episode will basically be a catch-up episode, so as I'm sure you know, I've been out of the office for the last two weeks. While I was away,

I released a three-part series all about the three branches of the federal government, which you guys absolutely loved, and I'm so happy about that. But because I was out of the office, I really wanted to use this episode as an opportunity to talk about some of the things that we haven't been able to talk about. So this episode covers some stories from the last two weeks, and then by the time Thursday rolls around, we'll get back to normal programming, just covering the most recent news from the last few days. So with that, and without further ado, let's talk about some news. Starting with President Biden's cancer diagnosis.

So former President Biden has been diagnosed with prostate cancer characterized by a Gleason score of nine grade group five with metastasis to the bone. First and foremost, prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers in men worldwide. Approximately one in eight men will be diagnosed with it during their lifetime, but it is more likely to develop in older men. So about six in 10 prostate cancers are diagnosed in men older than 65. The average age of a man when they're first diagnose is 67. President Biden is 82. With that said though, Biden's cancer is worse than most prostate cancers and that's because it has metastasized to the bone. So the metastasis to the bone

places him among the five to seven percent of prostate cancers in the United States that are metastatic at initial diagnosis. When prostate cancer is caught early, it's very treatable. There's a nearly 100% five-year survival rate, but when prostate cancer is metastatic at diagnosis, that five-year survival rate drops to around 37%. That's an average, obviously. There's a lot of factors that play into that number. Now, prostate cancers are detected using a blood test called PSA, or prostate-specific

antigen. And according to Biden's office, despite, you know, him receiving annual physicals over the course of the last four years, at least, his last PSA test was apparently in 2014, more than 10 years ago. Finally, let's talk about the Gleason score and treatment options. The Gleason score measures prostate cancer severity. It ranges from 6 to 10. Lower scores like 6 or 7 indicate slower growing, less aggressive cancer cells, whereas higher scores like 8, 9, and 10 represent aggressive cancers that are more likely to spread quickly.

Biden's Gleason score is a 9. It's unclear what his treatment plan will look like, but common treatments for metastatic prostate cancer can include things like hormone therapy, which blocks testosterone because testosterone fuels prostate cancer cell growth, chemo, radiation, immunotherapy, things of that nature. According to doctors, when prostate cancer is metastatic, treatment plans typically shift from curing the disease to instead managing symptoms, controlling the disease progression, and maintaining quality of life. But of course, this looks different person to person. There is no specific treatment

plan for any one individual. The next story that we missed, the Pentagon officially took possession of Qatar's Boeing 747-8 to be used as Air Force One. The Air Force has since said that it is preparing to award a contract to modify the jet so it can be used as the presidential plane, but it did not offer any other details.

Instead, it said that any information related to the modification of the aircraft is classified. Now, some estimates are putting the cost of modifications and retrofitting at $1 billion. If you think about what has to be done to this plane, it's a lot, right? I mean, right now, the plane looks like a very, very nice house. It's basically

a house kind of almost like a mansion actually. But to make sure that it's completely safe and secure, it'll have to be completely taken apart, right? Basically down to the wires, because the Defense Department is going to make sure every inch of that plane is free from any possible security threats. And when we think of security threats, we tend to think of the bigger threats like bombs, but we also have to think about threats like listening devices, right? Which tend to be pretty small and can be very well hidden. So once the plane is thoroughly stripped and checked, the Defense Department will have to add the incredibly high technology and security measures to essentially turn the plane into an airborne White House. So there's a lot that goes into it and therefore it will

cost a lot of money. Because of that there have been bipartisan concerns not only about the national security you know aspect of it all but also the cost. I should actually clarify that and say that a lot of the vocal pushback has definitely been more from Democrats, such as how politics work, right? You're not going to have as many Republicans vocally speaking about it. There have been a few Republicans that have spoken out about it, spoken out against it as well, but there have also been Republicans, a lot of Republicans that aren't necessarily speaking out in support of it either. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who is a Democrat,

actually introduced a bill within the last week or so that would have prohibited any taxpayer dollars from being spent on the plane, but that bill needed unanimous consent and one Senate Republican blocked it, so it did not pass. Keep in mind, while all of this is going on, Boeing is still working on two planes that are supposed to serve as Air Force One, but those are not supposed to be ready until sometime between 2027 and 2029. So President Trump plans to use this new Qatari plane as Air Force One once it's ready, whenever that will be, and then retire it to his presidential library once his term is over in 2029.

Speaking of the president and national security, President Trump announced plans for a missile defense project called the Golden Dome for America. In an announcement last week, the president said in part, quote, we have officially selected in architecture for this state of the art system

that will deploy next generation technologies across the land sea and space including space-based sensors and Interceptors the design for the Golden Dome will integrate with our existing defense capabilities and should be fully operational before the end of my term Once fully constructed the Golden Dome will be capable of intercepting missiles even if they are launched from other sides of the world and even if they are launched from space." End quote. The president went on to explain how we helped Israel build their highly effective Iron Dome and now we have even more technology which will be used to build ours. So the head of US Northern Command said that defense

system would consist of multiple layers. First, a domain awareness layer to track threats, then an intercontinental ballistic missile defeat layer, which he said largely already exists, and then an air layer that would intercept cruise missiles and air threats. According to the president, the programs that go into the defense system will be built in states like Florida, Georgia, Indiana, and Alaska and involve multiple defense and technology companies which have yet to be selected. Now the idea for a missile defense system like the one that the president is proposing, like the Golden Dome, is largely accepted by most experts. Most experts say that the existing system that we

have is largely inadequate if we were to be attacked by major players like Russia and China. Still though, the main concerns are of course cost and time until completion. So the Congressional Budget Office has estimated a cost of five hundred and forty two billion dollars over the next twenty years for the space-based components alone. That does not include the ground capabilities. Trump's cost estimate when he made the announcement was closer to $175 billion, which is clearly misaligned with the CBO's estimate.

I don't know whose estimate is more accurate, but clearly they are hundreds of billions of dollars apart. The president's time estimation is also different than the timeline we've gotten from defense officials. Trump says the system could be done in three years before he leaves office, whereas defense officials have said it would take at least five to seven years to develop these space-based weapons alone. It's unclear when the government will start building this system, but we do know that Congress did include $25 billion in funding specifically for Integrated Missile Defense in its budget reconciliation package last month.

In some other news, the DOJ dropped its lawsuits and related proposed police reform agreements with the cities of Louisville and Minneapolis. Now, what I want wanna do here is talk about why these lawsuits were filed in the first place, what the police reform agreements were supposed to do, and why the current administration has decided to do away with them. So these were relatively recent lawsuits

filed by the Biden administration following investigations that started way back in 2021 into both the Minneapolis and Louisville police departments for alleged civil rights violations. In Louisville, the federal investigation began following the death of Breonna Taylor. Two years later, in March 2023, the DOJ found that the Louisville police department had a history of discriminatory actions that violated the first, fourth, and 14th amendments of the Constitution, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act and other federal anti-discrimination laws. This finding led to a complaint or a lawsuit being

filed against the department this past December. Similarly, in Minneapolis, the federal investigation began following the death of George Floyd. The DOJ found similar patterns of constitutional violations by the City of Minneapolis Police Department in June 2023, which eventually led to a complaint being filed on January 6th of this year, just before President Biden left office. In both of these lawsuits, the government asked the judge to approve what's called a consent decree. So a consent decree is essentially a settlement agreement that is approved and enforced by the court. Once a consent decree is approved by the court, the defendant has to abide by certain terms and take certain actions to correct

previous actions, the you know previous actions that are at the center of the lawsuit, so they're under certain obligations. Those actions are overseen by the court. So the court makes sure that the defendant is fully fulfilling their obligations under that consent decree. So in these cases, as examples, the agreements required more training for police officers, policy changes to decrease the use of force, more thorough reviews when force was used, the departments were to recruit more people of color, and systems needed to be updated to make it easier for citizens to make complaints about officers. Consent decrees as they relate to police misconduct go back to the 90s. However, last Wednesday, the DOJ made its announcement,

the DOJ's Civil Rights Division specifically announced that the DOJ will be dismissing both lawsuits with prejudice, meaning the claims cannot be brought again by a future administration for the specific actions at the center of these lawsuits. The DOJ also said it will close the underlying investigations into both departments and retract the Biden administration's findings of constitutional violations. In asking the judge to dismiss the lawsuits, the DOJ wrote, quote, "'After an extensive review by current DOJ

and Civil Rights Division leadership, the United States no longer believes that the proposed consent decree would be in the public interest. The United States therefore does not wish to pursue this action any longer and hereby withdraws its support." In a separate press release, the DOJ wrote that the results of the investigations into the departments, quote, wrongly equate statistical disparities with intentional discrimination

and heavily rely on flawed methodologies and incomplete data." End quote. Providing a bit more of an explanation, the assistant attorney general of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division said quote, over broad police consent decrees divest local control of policing from communities where it belongs, turning that power over to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats, often with an anti-police agenda. Today we are ending the Biden Civil Rights Division's failed experiment of handcuffing local leaders and police departments with factually unjustified consent decrees." End quote. Now, despite both lawsuits being dropped, the mayors from both

Minneapolis and Louisville have said they will continue to reform their police force and abide by the terms of the proposed agreements. Minneapolis is actually still obligated to comply with a separate but very similar consent decree that it reached with the Minneapolis Department of Human Rights in 2023. And Louisville's mayor said his city will be adopting a police reform agreement that includes many of the obligations that were in the federal consent decree that's now being withdrawn including but not limited to Hiring an independent monitor to oversee the department's progress One final thing I want to note here just to tie this story into another story that we talked about recently Which was the administration withdrawing a desegregation consent decree for a school board in Louisiana. It seems as if this is a trend that

we will continue to see throughout the next few years, right? The administration, according to its own statements, sees consent decrees as an exercise of too much federal power. So we will probably see more of these consent decrees get withdrawn over the course of the administration and as the DOJ reviews all of the consent decrees that are currently in place. Switching gears a bit to the phasing out of the penny here in the United States. According to the Treasury Department, the agency put in its final order of blank pennies this month and will stop putting pennies into circulation by early 2026. As we previously talked about, President Trump directed the Treasury Department to stop minting pennies back in February. Why? Well, put simply, it costs more than a cent to mint the penny. So it's costing us more to

make the penny than the penny is worth. Consequently, the usefulness of the penny has been debated throughout history. In fact, in 1989, Congress introduced a law, albeit unsuccessfully, to round cash transactions to the nearest nickel and do away with the penny. The major argument in support of eliminating the penny is, of course, as we just talked about, that the Mint is losing money producing pennies. In its 2024 annual report, the US Mint reported losing $85.3 million on the nearly $3.2 billion pennies that are produced in fiscal year 2024. It noted that every penny costs almost $0.04 to manufacture, which is up from $0.03 the year before. And the United States is not alone in this. So other countries like Canada, Australia, Switzerland,

the Bahamas, they've all done away with their one cent coins for the same reason. Now on the other side of the argument, some argue that eliminating the penny wouldn't actually save as much money as some people think it would because it may necessitate an increase in nickel production to compensate for the elimination of pennies and

nickels cost more to produce than pennies do. Another argument against the elimination is that the elimination would negatively impact charitable organizations because charitable organizations often rely on people giving their spare change. Less pennies means less spare change. Nonetheless, according to the Treasury Department, ending penny production will save them in roughly $56 million annually. Once eliminated, US consumers will still be able to use pennies in transactions, and that's because a full discontinuation of the penny would most likely require an act of Congress. To be clear, the Treasury Department's latest action simply pauses new penny production. It does not discontinue penny production completely and forever. So what I mean

by that is, you know, a new administration can come in after the 2028 election and decide to resume penny production. It's not done forever because, again, ending that forever is something that would require an Act of Congress because Congress holds the power of the purse in our government. Let's take our first break here and I will be right back. Wendy's most important deal of the day has a fresh lineup. Pick any two breakfast items for $4. New four-piece French toast sticks,

bacon or sausage wrap, biscuit or English muffin sandwiches, small hot coffee and more. Limited time only at participating Wendy's Taxes Extra. Welcome back. Let's talk about some news out of the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court ruled four to four in the religious charter school case last week,

which means the decision stays with the Oklahoma State Supreme Court and the religious charter school will not go forward. We talked about this case earlier this month, but basically a virtual Catholic school called St. Isadora of Seville wanted to become the first taxpayer-funded religious charter school in the country.

The virtual charter school approved it in Oklahoma. So the Oklahoma Parent Legislative Action Committee subsequently filed a lawsuit challenging the charter school board's acceptance or approval of this virtual religious school. The case made its way up to the courts and eventually made its way to the Oklahoma State Supreme Court,

which is the highest court in the state of Oklahoma. And the Oklahoma State Supreme Court held that the school violated the constitution. The State Supreme Court said that if the school wanted to become a charter school and therefore accept taxpayer dollars, it would have to do away with any religious instruction. Well, the school board and St. Isidore obviously didn't like that decision, so they took the case to the Supreme Court.

Now Justice Barrett recused herself in this case because of her personal ties to Notre Dame Law School's Religious Liberty Initiative, which was involved in representing St. Isidore in this case. Justices are to recuse themselves when there is a conflict of interest. So that meant that there were only eight justices that would decide this case, not the usual nine. And as I've talked about previously, when there is an even number of justices presiding over a case and the final vote is a tie, the decision from the court below stands. So in this case, a tie meant that the decision from the Oklahoma Supreme Court was left intact.

Now, here's the other thing. Because the state Supreme Court's decision stands, it does not set a binding precedent at the national level. That's because Oklahoma courts do not have jurisdiction over any other state. A court's decision only applies to the areas which it has jurisdiction over. So the Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision applies only to the state of Oklahoma, which means that no religious school can attempt to become a charter school in the state of Oklahoma. But that doesn't mean that a

religious charter school can't attempt to become, or sorry, a religious school can't attempt to become a charter school in Texas or New York or any other state. So we could see this issue end up in the Supreme Court again. It just won't be from Oklahoma because Oklahoma now has established precedent. As a final note, we don't know which

justices voted which way in this case. The court did not publish a detailed opinion or disclose which justices voted on either side, and that's typical when it comes to tied decisions. However, there are some legal analysts who have speculated that the three liberal justices, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, voted against the religious charter school and that they were likely joined by Chief Justice Roberts. They speculate that on the other side, the more conservative justices, Justices Thomas Alito and Gorsuch,

likely voted to allow the religious charter school. But again, those are just guesses from legal analysts and scholars based off of the justices' past decisions and ideologies, but nothing has been confirmed. On Friday, the DOJ said they reached an agreement with Boeing related to the two deadly 737 MAX crashes in 2018 and 2019. Now, this is not the first time or the second time that Boeing and the government have reached an agreement to avoid trial. In fact, the most recent agreement was last year with the Biden administration. The agreement before that was in 2021. Notably, this new agreement is different from previous agreements.

So we'll talk more about the about last year's agreement, which was actually a guilty plea that was rejected. But let's start with the 2021 agreement. So the 2021 agreement was a deferred prosecution agreement. This new deal is a non-prosecution agreement. Basically, the difference there is that with a deferred prosecution agreement, the government files charges against the defendant and gives the defendant time to comply with certain conditions within a certain time frame. If the defendant complies, the charges are dropped. If the defendant time to comply with certain conditions within a certain timeframe. If the defendant complies, the charges are dropped. If the defendant doesn't comply,

the defendant is tried on those charges. With a non-prosecution agreement, which is what the new deal is structured as, no charges are filed in the beginning. So the defendant is given time to comply with certain conditions, and if those conditions are met, no charges are ever brought. If the conditions aren't met, charges can be brought if the government decides to do so.

Last year's agreement, as I said, was a guilty plea. So last year, Boeing agreed to plead guilty, but that agreement was rejected because a judge was concerned that the race-based considerations under the Biden administration DEI policies would be used in selecting the independent monitor that would have been in charge of overseeing Boeing's compliance. So there have been many attempts to settle this once and for all, and so far nothing has worked. Another key distinction in this new deal is the nature and focus of financial penalties. So while the total penalty amount of more than $1.1 billion is actually less than the $2.5 billion required in the 2021 Deferred Prosecution Agreement,

this new agreement places more of an emphasis on future safety and compliance. The $1.1 billion includes a $243.6 million fine, a $444.5 million payment in new compensation to families of the victims, and then over $455 million in investments towards improving Boeing's safety, compliance and quality systems. And then finally, another major change in the newer agreement is the introduction of an independent compliance consultant to oversee Boeing's reforms, which is something not included in the 2021 deal.

Despite these changes, the families of the victims are not happy about this. They've never wanted Boeing to avoid a trial. They still don't want Boeing to avoid a trial. Many argue that the agreement continues to shield Boeing from true accountability, especially by allowing the company to avoid charges completely through a non-prosecution agreement. I mean, assuming, of course, that Boeing complies with all of their obligations. They want Boeing to face charges because if Boeing is convicted, it could jeopardize Boeing's government contracts. So that's just one of the many reasons. They would also

prefer trial because more gets exposed at trial, but that's also why Boeing and the government don't want a trial. So both the government and Boeing are incentivized to reach an agreement and avoid trial. They both selfishly don't want to go to trial. For Boeing, a criminal conviction could result in it being barred from federal contracts and significantly damage its core business, which it obviously doesn't want. Not only that, but a conviction could also come

with much more severe penalties than what it would agree to in a plea deal or a non-prosecution agreement. A trial would also bring media coverage. A trial could also make public certain safety and inspection records and or internal communications, which Boeing doesn't want made public. So an agreement essentially helps Boeing contain the damage. It avoids a conviction.

It limits financial liabilities to a negotiated amount and it allows the company to move forward under controlled conditions. For the DOJ, an agreement allows the government to ensure accountability and financial penalties without the cost, time, and resources of a full-on criminal trial, which could take years. You know, an agreement also avoids the risk of losing in court. Not that the DOJ would likely lose this case, but it's definitely not a risk it wants to take. So through this agreement, the DOJ ensures some form of punishment, financial restitution

for the victims' families, and then also structural reforms at Boeing, all without the risk of trial. Like past agreements, though, this one will have to be accepted by a judge. So far, not one agreement has been accepted, so we'll have to see if this one ends up any different. Moving on, the DHS revoked Harvard's Exchange Visitor Program certification, which is essentially what gives it the ability to enroll international students.

Without that certification, Harvard cannot enroll any new international students, and existing Harvard students on international student visas would have to transfer to another school to maintain their student visa status. Now, Harvard currently enrolls about 7,000 international students, which is about a quarter of their student body.

Before I get into the story though, I wanna note that this move has since been blocked by a judge and we will talk about that, but first I wanna cover the actual revocation. Why and how the administration was able to do this. So last month the DHS sent a letter to Harvard criticizing it for failing to adequately condemn anti-Semitism and requesting records

on each student visa holder across all of Harvard schools, specifically disciplinary records and any illegal activity of Harvard's international students. According to the DHS, failure to comply with that request would be treated as a voluntary withdrawal of their exchange visitor program certification. Harvard says it sent some information to the DHS after that letter. It didn't specify exactly what was provided. Neither did the DHS. All we know is that last Thursday, the DHS sent Harvard this letter informing it that its exchange visitor program certification had been revoked. The letter says that Harvard has failed to comply

with the reporting requirements under the student and exchange visitor program regulations, saying in part, quote, as a result of your refusal to comply with multiple requests to provide the DHS pertinent information while perpetuating an unsafe campus environment that is hostile to Jewish students, promotes pro-Hamas sympathies, and employs racist diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, you have lost this privilege." End quote.

Now, you're probably wondering how the DHS is able to do this. Where does this authority come from? Well, ICE is an agency within the DHS, right? And ICE is the agency that issues student visas, vets international students, certifies institutions to enroll students with student visas, all of the above. To maintain certification status, there are federal regulations that institutions have to comply with, and it's up to ICE to monitor that.

If an institution fails to comply, ICE can withdraw the certification. Now federal law says that whenever DHS requests it, universities have to provide information on international students, degree program, course enrollment, grades, and academic status, including withdrawal, probation, suspension, or expulsion. So in this case, the DHS is making the argument that it requested records per this federal law, Harvard failed to comply, and therefore DHS and ICE have argument that it requested records per this federal law, Harvard failed to comply, and therefore DHS and ICE have the authority to revoke Harvard's certification status. Once Harvard received that letter, though, it immediately sued the DHS, arguing that the move

was a political act of retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and federal law. As we see in most lawsuits, Harvard asked the judge for what's called a temporary injunction, which the judge granted. So the injunction essentially allows Harvard to carry on business as usual while this lawsuit is playing out, right? So now that the injunction has been granted, nothing will change. Harvard can still enroll international students. Current international students can stay enrolled. Nothing changes. From here, though, the court will have to consider the actual merits of the case, the actual arguments,

and make a more final decision in the next few weeks. And then of course, once that final decision comes, we'll likely see this case get appealed by whoever the losing party is, and then potentially the case makes its way up to the Supreme Court. Unless of course, Harvard and the administration come to some sort of agreement in the meantime that allows Harvard to maintain its certification status while also giving the

administration what it's looking for. Next story, the presidential commission to make America healthy again released its health report titled Exposing Root Causes of Childhood Chronic Disease Crisis. So this story is actually kind of a follow-up to a story from a few months ago. You may remember in February, I reported on the president issuing this executive order, which one, established this commission, and two, tasked the commission with assessing the causes of childhood chronic disease.

I want to note at the outset that this report might be controversial to some people. That's okay. You don't have to agree with everything in the report. My job is just to tell you what the report says. So the report is broken down into four sections. Each section is described as a factor leading to the increase in childhood chronic disease. So the sections are as follows. One, the shift to ultra processed foods. Two, the cumulative load of chemicals in our environment. Three, the crisis of childhood behavior in the digital age. And four, the over-medicalization of our kids. The report first states that more than 40% of children in the United States have at least one chronic health condition. Chronic health conditions are described in the

report as conditions like asthma, allergies, obesity, autoimmune diseases, and behavioral disorders. Starting with the first factor, the shift to ultra-processed foods, the report states that ultra-processed foods make up nearly 70% of an American child's calories and more than 50% of a pregnant mother's calories. The report notes that the ultra-processing of food removes nutrients and causes the body to bypass fullness signals, which leads people to eat more and can eventually lead to obesity. The second factor, the cumulative load of chemicals in our environment, discusses the

various chemicals that American children are often exposed to and the consequences of those chemicals. The report talks about specific chemicals that may be problematic, including commonly used weed killers, and cites to specific studies that suggest links between these commonly used weed killers and chronic illnesses, as well as some other chemicals and chronic illnesses. The third factor, the crisis of childhood behavior in the digital age, covers the consequences of increased exposure to screens. It describes a decline in physical activity, stating that 70% of kids do not meet their

federal minimum recommendation of physical activity. It also talks about how screens have led to decreased sleep, chronic stress, and declining mental health. And finally, the fourth factor, over-medicalization of our kids, covers the increase in medication in American children. It cites statistics like stimulant prescriptions doubling from 2006 to 2016 and antidepressant prescriptions increasing 1400% since 1987. The report also mentions the growth of the childhood vaccine schedule, noting that since

1986, the number of recommended vaccines on the CDC childhood schedule before a child turns one has increased from three injections to 29. Because of this the report calls for more research into the impact of vaccines on childhood chronic disease and of vaccine injuries. Now this report is the first step of the Make America Healthy Again commission's agenda. Now that the assessment has been completed the commission will of the Make America Healthy Again Commission's agenda. Now that the assessment has been completed, the commission will produce the Make Our Children Healthy Again strategy, which will basically figure out how to make children healthy again through federal regulations based on the findings from this report. And again, these were all

tasks laid out in that February executive order. If you're interested in reading the Maha report, I do of course have it linked for you in the sources section of this episode. Let's take our second and final break here. When we come back, we'll go over the bill you've all been waiting for me to cover, which is the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Why do fintechs like Float choose Visa? As a more trusted, more secure payments network, Visa provides scale expertise and innovative payment solutions. Learn more at visa.ca slash fintech.

Welcome back. Let's talk about the one thing you've all been waiting for, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. So the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed the House in a 215 to 214 vote last week. It'll now head to the Senate. The first thing I wanna note, actually two things I want to note, one, the Senate is likely to make changes to this bill.

If it does, the revised bill, assuming it passes the Senate, will have to go back to the House and pass again in the House before it can head to the President's desk for his signature. So I'm going to cover what is currently included in this bill, but just know that some of this stuff could very well change depending on what kind of changes the Senate ultimately makes. The second thing I want to note is that the bill is over 1,000 pages and includes a lot of stuff. So throughout this discussion, I'm really only going to touch on the big ticket items and some of the more specific things that some of you requested

I touch on, but there's just no way for me to touch on everything. So if we zoom out and first look at the big picture, the bill includes $3.8 trillion in tax cuts, $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, and $300 billion in spending on the border and on defense systems. Most of the $1.5 trillion in spending cuts are attributed to Medicaid, however I want to be clear that Medicaid will not be eliminated under this bill. Instead, it will come with new work eligibility requirements, which we will talk about more in a minute. The bill also increases the debt ceiling by $4 trillion to avoid a default, which is currently on track to happen this summer.

That $4 trillion debt ceiling increases what many Republican senators are taking issue with. So we may see that come down in the Senate's revised bill. That's the big picture. Now we're gonna zoom in a bit. We'll start with the household financial implications. There are nine things that I specifically wanna touch on when it comes to household financial implications.

They're gonna range from taxes to student loans to other things as well. So let's just get into it. For one, the bill extends Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, right? Trump's 2017 tax cuts decreased taxes for every tax bracket except for the 10% tax bracket. The 10% bracket

stayed the same. However, Trump's 2017 tax cuts were temporary. They actually expire this year. So this new bill would make those 2017 tax cuts permanent. Without this bill, everyone will see their taxes go back to pre-2017 levels when you go to pay your taxes next. So they would go up if this bill didn't pass. Now I've seen a lot of people saying that taxes are going up for the poor, but down for the rich. That's not true.

At least when it comes to income taxes, the 2017 income tax cuts that we've all been enjoying for the last eight years or so would simply become permanent with the passage of this new bill. Sticking with taxes, if the bill passes the way it's written, there would be no taxes on tips or overtime pay for those making less than $160,000 a year. As a quick note here, the Senate passed their own

no tax on tips bill last week that similarly restricts eligibility to those making less than $160,000 a year, but also would allow a federal income tax deduction of up to $25,000. So that's yet another thing that the Senate may try to include when it makes its own changes. But currently, the way the bill is written, no taxes on tips or overtime for those making less than $160,000 a year. Next, the child tax credit. The bill would make permanent a provision

in Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which raised the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000. Without action from Congress, without this bill passing, the tax break would revert back to $1,000 next year. The bill would also make the highest child tax credit $2,500 per child from 2025 through 2028. After that, the top value would revert back to $2,000.

The bill mandates, though, that both parents must have a social security number if filing jointly and claiming the tax break for an eligible child. Tax experts are saying that this provision, if it's enacted the way it's written, will take the child tax credit away from roughly four and a half million children who are US citizens or lawfully present in the United States but whose parents don't have a social security number. The bill would also increase the federal deduction limit for state and local taxes. So the SALT deduction is the ability to deduct high state income and property taxes when filing federal taxes. The deduction limit is the cap on the amount of expenses you can subtract

from your federal taxable income. Currently, there's a $10,000 limit on the SALT deduction. That's per the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. But this new bill would increase the deduction cap to $40,000 this year, and then begin a process of phasing out tax breaks for incomes over $500,000. Speaking of tax deductions, the bill will implement bonus tax deductions for older Americans who qualify

as low to middle income individuals, tax filers with up to $75,000 in modified adjusted gross income and married couples with over $150,000 over the age of 65 can or will be able to, if this bill passes, deduct an additional $4,000 from their tax returns, which will reportedly save the average senior taxpayer around $480 per year this provision was Reportedly apparently added in place of eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits Which would have saved the average senior taxpayer more around

$1,400 per year the bill would also expand health savings accounts or HSAs, which are tax advantaged accounts used to pay for health care. And it would do this by expanding the ability for households to contribute and pull money from these funds without facing financial penalties. Currently, if you withdraw money from your HSA account under the age of 65 for non-medical reasons, you face a 20% penalty on the withdrawal amount in addition to paying regular income tax for the money you took. Under this new bill, though, households can pull money from HSAs for more flexible, non-direct medical reasons, things like gym memberships, sports, or direct primary care, which was not previously covered. On top of this, individuals making less than $75,000 a year could start to contribute up

to $8,600 per year to their HSA, which is twice as much as permitted under previous policies. The bill would also create a new savings account for children called Trump Accounts. The initiative, which would be funded by the Treasury Department, would create a federally funded savings account with a thousand dollar deposit for children born between January 1st, 2025 and January 1st, 2029. To be clear, the Treasury Department would be the one

contributing the initial $1,000 to each child's savings account. This money could later be used to pay for education, college alternatives, home down payments, fund a startup or small business, anything that falls into the permissible withdrawal criteria and any withdrawal down the road would be taxed at the long-term capital gains rate.

Parents would be able to contribute up to $5,000 per year to grow the account. There is no income requirement, but there is a citizenship requirement. The child must be a U.S. citizen and both parents must have Social Security numbers. On the subtopic of student loans, the bill would also eliminate subsidized federal student loans, which means the government would no longer cover interest on borrowers debt while they are in school. This move is expected to increase the amount owed by students by 15% at the time of graduation. The bill would also increase the period of time after which income driven repayment plan debt may be forgiven. So it would increase it to 30 years up from the current period of 20 to 25 years.

While we're still on the topic of student loans, I want to specifically talk about medical school loans for a second because I saw a girl post a now viral video claiming that the government is capping medical school loans at 150,000, which basically means only the rich can attend medical school. And the rationale there is that medical school typically costs around a half a million dollars.

And if only 150,000 of that can be covered by loans, school and the rationale there is that medical school typically costs around a half a million dollars and if you know only a hundred and fifty thousand of that can be covered by loans then only the ones with money could afford to attend medical school. So here's what's happening. This new bill is limiting borrowers to a hundred thousand dollars in federal loans for graduate programs and a hundred and fifty thousand dollars for professional programs and $150,000 for professional programs like medical school and law school. So yes, if this bill passes, federal loans for graduate programs and professional programs will be limited to those amounts. But to be clear, for anything above those amounts, borrowers could still use private

lenders. However, federal loans will be capped at those amounts for graduate and professional programs. Next, the bill includes a tax break of up to $10,000 for car owners of US-made cars who pay interest on their auto loan from 2025 to 2028. At the same time, it would eliminate tax breaks for consumers who buy or lease electric vehicles, which currently includes a $7,500 credit for the purchase or lease of a new electric vehicle and a $4,000 credit for the purchase

of a used electric vehicle. And finally, last thing I'll touch on when it comes to household finances, the bill increases the estate tax exemption to 15 million up from 13.9 million. To be clear increases the estate tax exemption to $15 million, up from $13.9 million. To be clear, the estate tax exemption is the amount of an individual's assets that can be transferred to their heirs free of federal tax upon their death. This change obviously only impacts those with a lot of assets.

Quickly on the topic of small businesses, the bill would lower taxes for small businesses by allowing them to deduct 23% of their qualified business income from taxes, which is an increase from the prior 20%. On the topic of Medicaid and SNAP, the bill includes nearly $1 trillion in cuts for both programs combined, roughly $700 billion in cuts to Medicaid and roughly $300 billion in cuts to SNAP. New work requirements would be implemented for both programs. That is where those cuts come into play. So to be eligible for Medicaid, individuals who can work will need to participate in qualifying

activities for at least 80 hours per month unless they can prove that they have an approved exemption. Those exempt include seniors, people with disabilities, caregivers for dependent people, and pregnant people. To be eligible for SNAP, people aged 18 to 64 who either have no dependents or have children over the age of seven and are able to work will have to work 80 hours per month. Currently, this 80-hour work requirement applies to people aged 18 to 54 who have no dependents and are able to work. So the new proposal would extend those SNAP work requirements to people aged 55 to 64, as well as those with children, so long as the children are over the age of seven. The rationale here from GOP lawmakers is that those who can work

and are not working are defrauding the government and therefore should be cut from the programs. Speaker Johnson, when asked about the cuts, said, quote, We have not cut Medicaid and we have not cut SNAP. What we're doing is working on fraud, waste and abuse. End quote. While we're talking about healthcare and Medicaid, I had someone message me asking if the bill was doing away with transgender health care, even for adults. So here's the deal. Under this bill, Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, both federal programs, would be prohibited from covering gender transition services, including puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries, even for adults. In

addition, the bill would exclude transition-related care from essential health benefits under the Affordable Care Act, which would mean that it can't be covered by private insurance plans that are federally regulated. On the topic of immigration, the bill would provide $46.5 billion for the southern border wall and $4 billion to hire 3,000 new border patrol agents, 5,000 new customs officers, and 10,000 new ICE officers. The bill would also impose a minimum $1,000 fee on migrants seeking asylum. That fee would be imposed as an application fee. Now like I said, this bill still has to get through the Senate. On Sunday, one Republican senator said

that there are enough GOP votes to stop the Senate. On Sunday, one Republican senator said that there are enough GOP votes to stop the bill until, quote, the president gets serious about spending reduction and reducing the deficit, end quote. So we'll have to wait and see what happens there. Again, we could see various provisions in the bill change, even some of those provisions that I went over. So stay tuned because once the bill ultimately does pass both chambers, I will go ahead and cover it again because that's the point at which we will know exactly what will be included, what changes we'll see, how it affects us, all of those things. Alright, let's finish with some quick hitters. We talked a few weeks ago about the incident

at the ICE facility in New Jersey where three Democratic lawmakers got into a bit of a scuffle with ICE agents. In an update, one of those lawmakers has since been indicted. Representative LaMonica McIver has been charged with assaulting law enforcement officers, a charge that McIver says is purely political. The complaint against McIver says she made quote-unquote forcible contact with authorities, including allegedly slamming her forearm into a Homeland Security investigations agent, pushing and using her forearms to forcibly strike an ICE officer. President Trump announced Sunday that the tariffs on the EU would be delayed until July

9. The 50% tariffs were originally scheduled to take effect on June 1, but President Trump said he received a call from the president of the European Commission requesting an extension and said it was his quote-unquote privilege to do so. The president said he would be meeting with the commission's president at some point in the near future to see if they can work out some sort of an agreement. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced new restrictions for journalists covering the Pentagon. Effective immediately, journalists will have to have official escorts in designated offices and corridors throughout the Pentagon. The newly restricted areas include Hegseth's office, the offices of his top aides,

and locations across the Mammoth building where the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Space Force maintain press offices. Hegseth noted that the move is designed to protect against the unauthorized disclosure of classified intelligence and sensitive information. The Pentagon Press Association, however, criticized the move, calling it a direct attack on the freedom of the press and America's right to know what the military is doing. The Association noted that the Pentagon Press Corps has had access to non-secured, unclassified spaces of the Pentagon for decades without any concern, including in the aftermath of 9-11. A new bipartisan bill making its way through the Senate would impose 500% sanctions on countries that continue buying Russian oil and gas unless Putin agrees to conduct ceasefire

negotiations. The bill coincides in timing with President Trump saying Putin has gone crazy and is refusing to engage in ceasefire talks shortly after Putin launched the largest ever drone and missile attack on Ukraine. And finally, President Trump announced a new partnership between U.S. Steel and Japan's Nippon Steel, which will reportedly create 70,000 jobs and put $14 billion into the U.S. economy. The announcement comes just months after President Biden blocked a proposed acquisition of U.S. Steel by Nippon Steel over national security concerns. In making the announcement, Trump described the deal as the largest investment in the history of the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania. Now we are going to skip critical thinking for today because this episode is already long enough. So that is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here as always. Have a great next couple of days, and I will talk to you again on Thursday.