UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (5/5/25): NPR/PBS Funding Cuts, Trump's Pope Picture, Alcatraz Re-Opening, Tariffs on Films, Fact-Checking Trump's 'Meet the Press' Interview, SpaceX Gets Its Own City, and More.

Episode Date: May 5, 2025

SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S ⁠FREE WEEKLY 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: Trump's New Executive Order Cuts Funding for NPR and PBS (1:05) Voice of America in Limbo After Appellate Ruling (9:39) Fact-Checking Sunday's 'Meet the Press' with the President; Highlighting Notable Moments (14:21) The Reality Behind Trump's Pope Picture on Truth Social (28:58) Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Cancel TPS for Venezuelans and Allow DOGE to Access Social Security Records (30:02) Trump Calls For Alcatraz to be "Rebuilt and Reopened" (33:43) Trump Calls for 100% Tariffs on Foreign Made Films (36:56) Education Dept. Resumes Collecting on Defaulted Students Loans (38:59) SpaceX Gets Its Own City Called Starbase (40:23) Quick Hitters: NASAs Fifth Spacewalk, House Cancels Vote on Anti-Boycott Act, REAL ID Requirement Takes Effect This Week, P. Diddy's Jury Selection Begins, DHS Offers Self-Deportation Stipend (42:36) Critical Thinking Segment (45:11) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE WEEKLY NEWSLETTER. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Monday, May 5th. Let's talk about some news. Before we do though, I do want to let you know that starting tomorrow, my newsletter will be going out twice a week, Tuesdays and Fridays. The newsletter is full of quick hitters covering the top stories in politics, pop culture, health, and business news from the last few days. And I might be biased for once, but I think it's pretty great.

It's not too dense. And I created it like that on purpose because basically what I did is I, you know, it's full of quick hitters, but there's a bunch of hyperlinks. So it can be more dense and more informative if you want it to be. You choose the level of depth. I always have the link to subscribe in every episode

description in the show notes, but there are actually a few ways you can do it so you can either click the link in this episode description which is the easiest way, or you can head over to substack.com or the sub stack app and just search unbiased society which is the name of the newsletter. First story of the day, on Thursday last week Trump signed an executive order prohibiting federal taxpayer dollars from supporting NPR and PBS. Ending taxpayer subsidization of biased media is the name of the order, and it directs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or CPB, to cease direct funding to NPR and PBS consistent

with the administration's policy to ensure that federal funding does not support biased and partisan news coverage. The order also says that the CBP board, or CPB board, shall cancel existing direct funding to the maximum extent allowed by law and shall decline to provide future funding. So what I want to do is explain why this order was issued, what CPB is, how it operates, and then talk about how CPB works with NPR and PBS so that this makes sense for all of us. By the way, I can just tell now if I accidentally call CPBCBP, just let it go.

Okay, my brain is not fully functioning in that way today. So you know what I'm talking about, it is CPB. According to the president's order, quote, neither entity, meaning NPR or PBS, presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpayers. Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of

current events to taxpaying citizens. The CPB's governing statute reflects principles of impartiality. The CPB may not contribute to or otherwise support any political party. The CPB fails to abide by these principles to the extent that it subsidizes NPR and PBS." End quote. Note that Trump's executive order is not the first time Republicans have decreased or cut funding for CPB. It was heavily opposed by former President Nixon who wanted to eliminate all congressional funding. And in 2023, House Republicans eliminated funding for CPB from their appropriations bill. So the CPB, which is a publicly funded non-profit,

was created to support public broadcasting. It was established in the 60s through the 1967 Public Broadcasting Act, which was signed into law by former President Lyndon B. Johnson. It was meant to ensure telecommunications and news could be accessible to the public. And from the start, it collaborated with the National Education Television Network, which was later replaced by PBS. The CPB started helping to fund NPR shortly thereafter in 1970 when the CPB helped to form NPR. The CPB gets most of its funding from Congress. Okay, so currently it receives $535 million each year from Congress.

A majority of these federal funds are used to provide grants to thousands of local stations nationwide to, again, ensure that news and telecommunications could be accessible to the public. To put a number on it, more than 70% of the CPB's annual appropriation from Congress goes to local stations. So Congress appropriates funds to CPB, and then CPB distributes those funds to more than 1,500 local, rural, and urban public media stations in the form of community service grants.

Those stations then use those grants to produce their own programming or to purchase programming from services like NPR and PBS that it then broadcasts to local audiences. I do also want to note that while Congress appropriates more than $530 million to CPB each year, the funding for public media actually comes from many sources. Stations and producers raise funds from viewers, listeners, and donors, and this revenue, this raising of revenue is actually critical for their operations. The money raised is oftentimes much more than what they receive in grants from the CPB. I'll give you a couple of examples.

So a local station in Austin, Texas called KUT Radio, which is Austin's NPR station, its website says that the vast majority, so 90% of the station's roughly $14 million budget comes from private donations from individuals and businesses. 6% of its budget comes from the CPB. Other stations though, rely more so on federal funding. So one PBS affiliate, KLRU, received just over $2 million in CBP funding, which

is about 12% of the station's total budget. So what we can deduce from this information is that the cuts in funding would likely have the most impact on smaller rural public radio and TV stations. Those smaller stations tend to operate with significant operating expenses because they're the only station for a particular community, but also tend to not have the larger donor base that urban stations have and therefore rely more on federal funding. One station, Marfa Public Radio, which broadcasts across West Texas, posted to its Instagram that federal cuts could cause the station to lose up to one-third of its budget. So that's 33%.

With that in mind, let's go back to what the order says. The order directs the CPB to stop all direct federal funding to PBS and NPR. It also says that the CPB must revise eligibility criteria for grants by June 30th such that the language prohibits direct or indirect funding of NPR and PBS, and it directs the HHS secretary to determine whether PBS, NPR, or successor organizations are complying with fair hiring practices consistent with the administration's emphasis on eliminating DEI. So what that means is that the CPB cannot send funds to PBS and NPR, which means PBS and NPR will not have funds to send to these local stations, which means those local stations will lose anywhere

from 6 to 33% of their operating budget depending on the station, right? Again, the smaller, more rural stations would be more affected because they don't have that large donor base that the larger stations do, and they rely more on federal funding. The CPB has already filed a lawsuit against the administration arguing that this order exceeds the authority of the executive branch in part because the CPB is not a federal executive agency subject to the president's authority. The head of CPB argues that the founding intent of the CPB was to separate it from the control of federal departments. The president and CEO of NPR said NPR also plans to challenge the order using all means

available. She argues that the order is unlawful and said in a statement that the founders of America quote knew that an informed public is essential to a functioning democracy and that commitment to serve and inform public is the heart of NPR's mission." End quote. The president and CEO of PBS similarly argues that the order is blatantly unlawful and said in a statement that the order quote,

threatens our ability to serve the American public with educational programming as we have for the past 50 plus years. She said, PBS was also in the process of exploring all options to allow PBS to continue to serve its member stations and Americans. The Trump administration, on the other hand, has said that the funding cuts are justified

because again, the CPB's governing statute reflects principles of impartiality, including that it cannot contribute or otherwise support any political party and that it's failing to abide by these principles to the extent that it subsidizes outlets like NPR and PBS. The executive order also states that no media outlet has a constitutional right to taxpayer subsidies and the government is entitled to determine which categories of activities to subsidize.

So we'll see how these challenges shape up with time. The next update you'll likely hear about is a temporary injunction where a judge will either decide to allow funding for NPR and PBS while the litigation is pending or continue to block funding for NPR and PBS while the litigation is pending. With that, let's move on to some more media adjacent news. Over the weekend, Voice of America experienced a bit of whiplash. So as of Thursday, the DOJ was reportedly telling Voice of America employees to return to work after more than a month of prohibiting their work. But then on Saturday, an appellate court said, eh, wait a minute, not so fast. So let's talk about this. First,

what is VOA, Voice of America? Voice of America is an international multimedia broadcaster that produces programming in more than 40 languages, so foreign audiences can be aware of American news and US policies. It's funded by Congress. Its goal has always been to counter foreign propaganda. According to VOA, its audience totals around 354 million people internationally. Notably, VOA is prohibited from broadcasting to American audiences because of the Smith-Munn Act, which mandates VOA content be directed toward foreign audiences specifically. Also, VOA is one of the only sources of journalism able to reach people living under authoritarian regimes because of its statutory firewall.

So this firewall was established through the US International Broadcasting Act, and it prohibits government officials in other countries or other non-journalistic personnel from interfering with newsroom decisions. In March, the president signed an executive order which eliminated the US agency for global media. Now the US agency for global media oversees VOA. According to President Trump, this was done in an

effort to reduce the elements of the federal bureaucracy that he has determined to be unnecessary. The order shut down VOA operations on March 15th and VOA staffers have said that they've been directed to stop working. The VOA's website also has not been updated since March 15th and VOA staffers have said that they've been directed to stop working. The VOA's website also has not been updated since March 15th. Kerry Lake, Trump's senior advisor for the US Agency for Global Media, said, quote, Waste, fraud, and abuse run rampant in this agency and American taxpayers shouldn't have to fund it. End quote. A White House official commenting on the executive order similarly said,

quote, voice of America has been out of step with America for years. It serves as the voice for radical America and has pushed a divisive propaganda for years now. End quote. Naturally, when this executive order was signed, VOA sued the administration, arguing that the order was unconstitutional. Six VOA journalists also sued, arguing that the order violated their First Amendment free speech rights and demonstrated an overreach of executive power by attempting to control funding, funding that is appropriated by Congress. Keep in mind though, there are four different pending lawsuits right now over the same issue. So in one of those four cases, a court ruled last month that VOA employees have to be reinstated and full

broadcasting operations must resume while the litigation is pending. In ruling that way, the judge found that the administration was likely in direct violation of numerous federal laws. The DOJ then appealed that ruling and despite its appeal at the end of last week reports started surfacing which said that the DOJ was actually telling VOA employees that they could start returning to work as soon as this week meaning today, Monday. That was until Saturday when the appeals court ruled on the DOJ's appeal. On Saturday, the DC appeals court ruled two to one that the lower court's order has to be put on pause while the DOJ pursues an appeal

in this case. So the appellate judges essentially found that courts have to defer to the executive branch on employment matters and that the lower court likely did not have the proper jurisdiction to order the VOA employees back to work in the first place. Note that this pause on the lower court's ruling is temporary until the appellate court actually hears the merits of this case and renders a more final decision. Kerry Lake reacted to Saturday's decision saying quote this is a huge victory for President Trump and his Article II powers granted in the United States Constitution.

It's also a victory for the US agency for global media and VOA. She said, now that we have a favorable ruling in the appeals court, we look forward to accomplishing the plan we've always had to bring VOA into the 21st century. Now, Lake's comments prompted critics to point out that Lake has seemingly switched from voicing support for the full elimination of VOA to instead supporting its

restructuring. So as with anything, time will tell. Let's take our first break here and I will be right back. Welcome back. On Sunday morning, NBC aired the latest episode of Meet the Press, which featured an interview with the president. Last week, I fact-checked Trump's 100-day interview with ABC News. So I want to fact-check a few claims from the NBC interview as well. And there was actually one thing that I wanted to clarify from the last fact-check that this interview offers a good opportunity to do so. At the end of the fact check, I will also point out some notable moments

from the interview that are making headlines. And what I wanna do is play the clips for you as they relate to those headlines so you have the full context. So Trump again said border crossings are down 99.9999%. This is something that we kind of talked about last week. Border encounters are down to 95%, not 99.9999%. That 99.9999% figure may have been referencing and likely is referencing a recent press briefing held by Borders R. Tom Homan in which Homan was

comparing numbers under the Biden administration to the Trump administration. And one of those comparisons that he made, he said that in the first 100 days of 2024, so under the Biden administration, from January 20th, 2024 to April 1st, 2024, 184 illegal immigrants were released into the United States, meaning they were in ice custody, they were released into the United States. Comparatively in the first 100 days of Trump's administration, only nine have been released. Homan said that four of those nine were material witnesses in a criminal investigation and they were needed to testify.

Four were released due to extreme medical conditions and one was a humanitarian issue. So keep in mind this number that equates to 99.999% reduction is referencing intentional releases from ICE custody, not people who crossed the border and entered the United States illegally and got past border patrol. This nine figure specifically consists of people that DHS or ICE agreed to release into the United States after taking custody. So that's likely where that 99.999% figure is coming from. Border crossings generally though, border encounters are down 95%.

Trump also restated the claim that gas is now below $2 a gallon in many cases. And this is the one that I wanted to provide a little bit of clarity on from the last fact check because he did say something similar in his interview with ABC News. And I didn't really provide the full context there. I said it wasn't true because consumer gas prices are not below 2% or not below $2 a gallon,

but there's more information I have to give. So again, there are no states that have gas at the pumps for less than $2.65 a gallon. I said in the last episode, the state with the cheapest gas is Mississippi. The national average is currently $3.16 per gallon, which is slightly elevated from January when the average price of gas was $3.12. The number that Trump is referring to when he says under $2 a gallon is the price of wholesale RBOB gas. RBOB is the base material for gas before additives.

Now, wholesale RBOB gas ultimately affects the gas prices you and I pay at the pump, right? But the claim that gas is now below $2 a gallon is misleading because it implies that some consumers are paying less than $2 a gallon at the pump. That is not the case. Perhaps as the wholesale RBOB price comes down in the coming months, we'll eventually see the price of gas at the pumps also come down and maybe even to less than $2 a gallon, but we are not there yet. So when he says gas is below $2 a gallon, just so he is referring to that wholesale RBOB price. Trump claimed we have murders, 11,888 murders, many of them

murdered more than one person. This is similar to a claim Trump made back in October when he said that there are 13,000 migrant murderers on the loose. These numbers come from an ICE report from September 2024 that showed a whole compilation of people under ICE supervision, including those not in ICE custody, meaning not in ICE custody any longer. Sorry, I should have clarified that. The data that was provided to Congress by ICE included roughly 425,000 convicted criminals, of which 13,099 people were found guilty of homicide. However, it's important to note

that the numbers provided in this report spanned decades, including during Trump's first administration. And we don't know how many of those people not in ICE custody are actually roaming freely versus having been detained by state or local law enforcement agencies at some point. So per ICE's report, it is true that ICE is aware of roughly 13,000 individuals who have come into this country Who have been convicted of homicide or found guilty of homicide But again those numbers span decades and we don't know how many of those individuals are

Still in the country are here roaming free or have since been detained Next one Trump said mortgage rates are going down despite a stubborn Fed This is true for the most part mortgage rates are going down despite a stubborn Fed. This is true for the most part. Mortgage rates are overall lower since January. They are higher than they were a month ago, but since January mortgage rates have fallen about 0.7%. And then finally, Trump spoke about tax cuts and said Republicans are trying to get the biggest tax cuts in history approved.

And if it doesn't get approved, it's a 60% tax increase. That's what the Democrats want. They want a 68. Sorry, did I say 60? I meant 68. He said Democrats want a 68% tax increase. So what's happening right now is Congress is negotiating an extension to Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,

which will expire this year without a replacement bill. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered taxes for pretty much every tax bracket, except the 10% tax bracket stayed the same and the 35% tax bracket stayed the same. If the Act expires, each tax bracket, except for that 10% and 35% bracket, will see an increase anywhere from 1% to 4%. Basically, the tax brackets will go back to what they were pre 2017. Now I am not sure where that 68% number is coming from aside from the fact that Democrats would like to raise taxes for high income earners and corporations, but I have not found anything that would verify that 68% number. I don't know where that number is coming from.

Okay, let's finish this discussion, this interview discussion, with some notable moments from the interview so that I can provide the corresponding clips to some of the headlines that you might be seeing. That way you can have the full context. First one, Trump said he would be okay with a recession in the short term. Is it okay in the short term to have a recession? Look, yes, everything's okay. What we are, I said, this is a transition period.

I think we're going to do fantastically. I think we're going to have an economy the likes of which we've never had before. Next one, Trump said he would not be removing Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Do you rule out removing Fed Chair Jerome Powell? I'm not, you know, I get to change them very quickly anyway, you know, in a very short period of time. In 2026. You're not going to remove, you don't have plans to remove him before 2026?

No, I don't have plans. When his time's up? That was a total, why would I do that? I get to replace the person in another short period of time. Trump said moving Mike Waltz to UN ambassador from national security advisor was not a punishment. This week you reshuffled your national security team. You moved national security advisor Mike Waltz to UN ambassador. Just to remind our viewers, Waltz of course started that unsecure text chain where sensitive

information was shared. Mr. President, was that move a punishment? No, I just think he'll do a nice job in the new position. Marco's doing an outstanding job. No, Marco won't keep, Marco's very busy doing other things, so he's not gonna keep it long-term. We're gonna put somebody else in. But I think Mike was, as you know, he's a fine guy,

and I think he'll do a very good job. Knows the country, knows leadership, and I think he'll do a very good job at the United Nations. And in the meantime, Marco's really doing something special and it's gonna work out very well. Trump said Pete Hegseth was safe in his role as Defense Secretary. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth obviously also on that unsecured text chain he was sharing sensitive information. Are you looking for a new secretary of defense? No, not even a little bit.

No, Pete's going to be great. His job is safe right now? We're doing a fantastic job against the Houthis, who like blowing ships up and watching them sink in the ocean. We're hitting them very hard. No, he's doing a very good job. His job is safe right now?

Totally safe. OK. Trump said he has the power to ask for Abrego Garcia back, but that the decision rests with the president of El Salvador. Do you have the power to bring Abrego Garcia back as the supreme president? Well, I have the power to ask for him to come back if I'm instructed by the attorney general that it's legal to do so. But the decision as to whether or not he should come back will be the head of El Salvador. He's a very capable man. Trump said he doesn't know whether everyone deserves due process.

Your secretary of state says everyone who's here, citizens and non-citizens, deserve due process. Do you agree, Mr. President? I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. I don't know. Well, the Fifth Amendment says it's not. I don't know, it seems, it might say that,

but if you're talking about that, then we'd have to have a million or two million or three million trials. We have thousands of people that are some murderers and some drug dealers and some of the worst people on earth. Some of the worst, most dangerous people on earth. And I was elected to get them the hell out of here and the courts are holding me from doing it. But even given those numbers that you're talking about,

don't you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president? I don't know. I have to respond by saying again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said. What you said going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said. What you said is not what I heard the Supreme Court said.

They have a different interpretation. Trump said, you're always going to have dissent in a democracy, and it would be a strange place if you didn't have dissent. Do you see dissent as an essential part of democracy? It's a part of democracy. It is. Is it an important part of democracy? You're always going to have dissent. Is it an important part of democracy?

You're always going to have dissent. You're always going to have dissent. There's nothing you're going to do about that. Am I going to get 100% unified? It would be a strange place. I can't even imagine it where 100%... Look, you have people that are good people, they're very smart people, and they honestly believe we should have open borders and the entire world should be allowed

to pour into our country. I think it's a 95-5 issue, but they believe it. They're not even bad people, some of them are bad. You have people that honestly believe that men should be allowed to play in women's sports. Some of these people, I really, actually, I don't know any. I haven't been able to find any, but they exist. They say it's an 80-20 issue.

I don't believe that. I think it's a 97 to three issue. Do you think people should have the right to criticize you without fear of reprisal? Absolutely, yeah, I do, that I do. And how do you square that? And I think that happens. How do you square that with the fact

that you have passed these executive orders asking the Attorney General to look into some of the people who've criticized you, who've been harshest against you? I have been investigated more than any person in the history of the United States of America. These people are evil people, and I won. And I'll tell you what, all I want to happen is for the Department of Justice and the FBI. Pam is great and Cash is great. I think they're two great people,

but they're their own people. They want to do a fantastic job. And all I want to do and all I want to ask for is that they be allowed to do their job. I'm not telling them to do anything, and I believe I have the right to do it. I'm, in theory, the top law enforcement officer as the president. We went over this once before, and it turned out I was right. But I'm not looking to use that.

We have two great people, and we have many, many incredible people under them, and I just want them to do their job and do it well. Trump said he will not pursue a third term. The Trump Organization is selling hats that say Trump 2028. Yeah. Are you seriously considering a third term, Mr. President, even though it's prohibited by the Constitution, or is this about staying politically viable?

I will say this. So many people want me to do it. I have never had requests so strong as that, but it's something that to the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to do. I don't know if that's constitutional that they're not allowing you to do it or anything else, but there are many people selling the 2028 hat,

but this is not something I'm looking to do. I'm looking to have four great years and turn it over to somebody, ideally a great Republican, a great Republican, to carry it forward. But I think we're going to have four years and I think four years is plenty of time to do something really spectacular. And finally, Trump said it's too early to decide on a successor for his quote-unquote MAGA movement, but that VP Vance as VP has an advantage. I know that you are only a hundred days in, but as we sit here today, who do you see as your successor, Mr. President?

Well, it's far too early to say that, but I do have a vice president and typically it would be in JD's doing a fantastic job. He would be at the top of the list? It could very well be. I don't want to get involved in that. I think he's a fantastic, brilliant guy. Marco is great. There's a lot of them that are great. I also see tremendous unity, but certainly you would say that somebody's the VP, if that person is outstanding,

I guess that person would have an advantage, but I think the other people would all stay in unbelievably high positions. But, you know, it could be that he'd be challenged by somebody. We have a lot of good people in this party. Okay, so those are just some of the moments that I wanted to provide clarity on.

Hopefully you feel like you have a bit more context now. This next story is one I would typically wait to include until Rumor Has It on Thursday, but a lot of you wanted to know more about this so I figured I would talk about it today. Over the weekend a picture was posted to the president's truth social account depicting him as the Pope. I think the most frequently asked questions I have received are one, did he really post this? and two, did he really dress up as the Pope? So yes he did really post this picture but no he did not actually

dress up as the Pope. This is an AI generated picture. I'm sure many of you have messed around with AI before. You know how it works. But for those that haven't, basically you can prompt AI, whether it's chat GPT or grok or another AI to create any picture for you. In this case, Trump's team likely told AI something like create an image depicting President Trump as the Pope. And then there you go, AI spits out the image. But yes, this picture was actually posted to Trump's Truth Social account on Friday. We don't know if Trump himself posted it or if it was someone on his social media team, but it was posted.

Let's take our second and final break here and I will be right back. Welcome back. Some quick Supreme Court news. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to review two cases. In one case, the administration is asking the justices to allow members of DOJ to access the records of the Social Security Administration. And in another case, the administration is asking the justices to end temporary protected status for Venezuelan citizens in the United States. So starting with this TPS status case, we've talked about the TPS program before, but to quickly recap,

the DHS can designate a country for temporary protected status for reasons like ongoing conflict, environmental disasters, epidemic, or other extraordinary yet temporary conditions. When a country is designated for TPS status, individuals from that country can file for temporary status in the United States and receive a temporary U.S. visa with benefits like employment, travel authorization, and protection from deportation. People can receive this TPS status for a maximum of 18 months. So in 2023, the Biden administration gave Venezuela this designation.

And then in January, shortly before Trump took office, the administration extended Venezuela's designation for another 18 months, which would allow individuals from Venezuela who already had this temporary protected status to re-register and extend that status. There are currently about 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants with TPS. In February, though, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem revoked the 18-month extension and terminated the program. This meant that

individuals that previously held TPS status would lose their government issued work permits and deportation protections as of April 7th of this year. In response, though, people sued, arguing that this termination violated administrative procedures and was influenced by racial bias. In March, a federal judge in San Francisco prohibited the administration from revoking TPS status while this case moved forward on the basis that, one, the plaintiffs were likely to eventually succeed in showing that this move by the DHS was unauthorized by law, arbitrary and capricious, and motivated by unconstitutional animus,

and two, that terminating the initiative would inflict irreparable harm on hundreds of thousands of people whose lives, families, and livelihoods would be severely disrupted. So the administration appeals that injunction, but the Court of Appeals sided with the immigrants. So now here we are at the Supreme Court. Keep in mind, because this case is still very much in the early ages and no court has yet rendered a final decision on the

actual merits of the case, what we'll likely see from the Supreme Court is just a decision on what has to happen while the litigation is pending, right? So the justices will likely either say, while this case plays out, the administration has to continue providing TPS status, or on the contrary, while this case plays out, the administration can start deporting Venezuelan citizens that previously had TPS status. So stay tuned for that decision. In the Doge case, similar situation in March, a judge temporarily prohibited the SSA, Social Security Administration,

from giving Doge members access to SSA records. The administration appealed that ruling, the appellate court upheld it. So the administration has now taken it to the Supreme Court. If the justices side with the administration, that would mean that Doge can access SSA records while this litigation plays out. But if the justices uphold the injunction issued by the lower court, Doge members cannot access SSA records while the lawsuit plays out. Okay, now for some Alcatraz news. On Sunday, President Trump posted a statement on Truth Social about reopening Alcatraz for

the most serious offenders. The post started with, quote, rebuild and open Alcatraz. He then went on to describe the presence of vicious, violent, and repeat criminal offenders in America and said in part, quote, I'm directing the Bureau of Prisons together with the Department of Justice, FBI and Homeland Security to reopen a substantially enlarged and rebuilt Alcatraz to house America's most ruthless and violent offenders. Now, he did say in that statement, a rebuilt Alcatraz. So I don't know if he's planning on building a new Alcatraz or

using the same one and just updating it, but we'll talk about if he were to use the same one if that's what he's talking about what would have to happen because Alcatraz is a historical landmark, but we'll get there in a minute. So Alcatraz is an island off the coast of San Francisco. It's a little over a mile from the mainland. It was originally used for military purposes starting in 1850, but then in 1933 it was transferred to the DOJ for use by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. It was a maximum security, minimum privilege prison for some of the most serious offenders. At the time of its opening, the Federal Bureau of Prisons said that they decided to open it to show the law abiding public that the federal government was serious

about stopping the rampant crime of the 1920s and 1930s. Capacity of the prison was 336, but it never reached capacity. The average population was around 260 to 275. Roughly 30 years after it opened, it closed. At this point, the prison's infrastructure was crumbling, and the government found that the operations were far more costly than mainland-based prisons, more than three times any other federal prison. Today, Alcatraz Island is a popular tourist attraction. It's operated by the National Park Service, and it has been designated a national historic landmark since 1986. And yes, this means that there are preservation protections in place, which could interfere with Trump's plans.

The administration would likely have to go through a withdrawal process to make Alcatraz a prison again, which we'll talk about more in a minute. But on top of the potential withdrawal process, authorities have estimated that it could cost anywhere from $3 to $5 million to restore and maintain the facility. And that's not including the daily operating costs, which the Federal Bureau of Prisons previously found to be too expensive. Now when it comes to withdrawing a National Historic Landmark designation, there are four criteria that can justify it. One, the property has ceased to meet criteria for designation, the qualities for which it was originally designated have been lost or destroyed.

Two, additional information forthcoming after the designation demonstrates that the property does not possess sufficient significance to be a national historic landmark. Three, a professional error was made in the designation process. Or four, there was a prejudicial error in the designation process or four, there was a prejudicial error in the designation process. It doesn't seem like any of those criteria really apply to Alcatraz, so who knows what will happen here, but that is something that I'm sure the administration is already looking into.

Speaking of posts to Truth Social, the president says he will be imposing 100% tariffs on foreign-made films. Trump's post reads in part, quote, the movie industry in America is dying at a very fast death. Other countries are offering all sorts of incentives to draw our filmmakers and studios away from the United States. Hollywood and many other areas within the USA are being devastated. This is a concerted effort by other nations and therefore a national security threat. End quote. He further said he will be authorizing

the Department of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative to immediately begin the process of instituting a 100% tariff on any and all movies coming into our country that are produced in foreign lands. Notably, the majority of movies shown in American theaters are produced in the United States. However, while much of the production process often takes place in the United States. However, while much of the production process often takes place in the United States, like planning, scriptwriting, casting, editing, etc., an increasing number of producers have started looking internationally for filming processes because of the lower costs abroad. Countries like the United Kingdom and Canada actually offer certain tax incentives, which major film corporations like Netflix and Disney have taken advantage of, and this has in turn slightly influenced

production in the United States. In the LA area, for example, production last year was down 5.6% from 2023. I do want to highlight that it's not clear how a tariff like this would work, right? Because most items we see tariffs on are physical goods which move through ports and therefore at the port is when the tariff is charged. Movies on the other hand are intellectual goods. So, you know, one, how do you value a movie? And two, how do you classify movie imports?

Yeah, how do you classify movie imports? That still needs to be defined. And then also keep in mind, if these tariffs were to proceed, there's also the risk of reciprocal tariffs, which we've seen with some of the other tariffs being imposed this year. A lot of the big budget movies actually earn a lot of revenue overseas. So reciprocal tariffs would risk pretty hefty consequences to the American film industry. Moving on, just a heads up that the Department of Education did resume collections on defaulted loans today. Defaulted loan collections were put on pause in March 2020 because of the pandemic,

and during the Biden administration that pause was extended through the end of Biden's presidential term. So now that the department has resumed collections, what does this mean? Well, people who have not made payments in at least nine months are considered to be in default. Because of that defaulted status, the government can start collecting on this debt through a process known as administrative wage garnishment. This is a collection tool that allows federal agencies to collect on delinquent government debts.

Because these student loans are government loans, government debts, the government can utilize administrative wage garnishment. This includes withholding federal and state payments, so things like tax returns and social Security benefits. 100% of tax returns can be withheld, 15% of Social Security benefits can be withheld. And then the government can also order employers to withhold up to 15% of an employee's after-tax income for purposes of paying off the debt. Currently there

are about 5 million borrowers in default. Another 4 million are in late-stage delinquency, which means they've gone at least 90 days without payment but haven't yet reached that 9-month mark. And then as a final note, this collection process was standard procedure before the pandemic, meaning that administrative wage garnishment that was standard procedure before the pandemic pause. And finally, the last story of the day, before we jump into quick hitters, over the weekend residents in a South Texas neighborhood voted overwhelmingly to incorporate their neighborhood

into a small town for SpaceX called Starbase. Elon Musk had originally proposed the idea of an incorporated town four years ago in 2021. He said the town called Starbase would be made up almost exclusively of SpaceX employees, people connected to the company, as well as the company's headquarters. Now, one major potential reason that Musk wanted SpaceX to have its own city is because it would enable greater control of the area and ease some of the bureaucracy and restrictions, right? Disney did a similar thing in Florida. Before Starbase's incorporation, SpaceX was having to get permission from Cameron

County to close highways and state parks when it was doing rocket launches and even when it was moving certain equipment around the base. So if you combine that with the fact that SpaceX has already asked federal authorities to increase the number of South Texas launches from five to 25 each year, it makes sense why Musk would want a city solely for SpaceX. When it came time for an incorporation vote, 212 residents voted in the incorporation's favor. Only six voted against it. Only 143 votes were needed to pass,

so it well surpassed that threshold. Starbase is located near the Mexico border and it covers about one and a half square miles. It's considered a type C city, which means it can impose a property tax of up to 1.5% on its residents. According to the Texas incorporation process, a town can apply to become a type C general law municipality if it has between 201 and 4,999 residents. If the town has fewer than 2,000 residents, it must not occupy more than 2 square miles of surface area. And then if it has between 2001 residents and 4,999 residents, it must be smaller than 4 square miles. Following the

incorporation vote, Starbase posted to its newly created X account and wrote that becoming a city will help it continue building the best community possible for the men and women building the future of humanity's place in space. Now it's time for some quick hitters. Two NASA astronauts completed a spacewalk on Thursday. This is just the fifth spacewalk in NASA's history. It began around 840 a.m. Eastern time on Thursday and lasted about six and a half hours. The two women were relocating a space station's communications antenna and installing a mounting bracket to prepare for an additional set of solar panels that will be put in place during a future spacewalk.

The House of Representatives canceled a vote today on a bill called the of solar panels that will be put in place during a future spacewalk. The House of Representatives canceled a vote today on a bill called the IGO Anti-Boycott Act. The bill would have amended the Exports Control Reform Act of 2018 to include international governmental organizations in existing anti-boycott laws. In other words, the bill would have criminalized

Americans participating in boycotts of foreign countries if those boycotts are endorsed by international bodies like the UN or EU. The bill provides for civil penalties, criminal fines up to a million dollars, and prison time of up to 20 years for anyone who violates the law. Interestingly, the bill has both bipartisan support and bipartisan opposition. So supporters of the bill say it targets anti-Semitic actions, including boycotts of Israel. Critics say the bill goes against the First Amendment and the right to boycott. So due to the backlash, the vote in the House was canceled today.

Real ID takes effects at airports on Wednesday. If you are traveling through domestic airports starting Wednesday, you will need a real ID. If you don't have a real ID, you can also use a passport, a green card, a military ID or global entry. Now don't panic if you don't have any of these things. Okay. You'll still be allowed to fly. It just might take a little longer going through security. TSA is saying to bring an extra form of ID with you to verify your identity if you have just a regular driver's license to show, and that'll just help save time. Jury selection for the trial of Sean Diddy Combs started today in New York City. Diddy will face trial for sex trafficking, racketeering, conspiracy,

and transporting to engage in prostitution. Combs most recently turned down a plea deal from prosecutors 10 days ago, though we don't know the details of that deal. Jury selection is expected to last a week with opening statements scheduled to begin next week. And by the way, because this trial is a criminal trial, it will not be televised. And finally, the DHS announced a new $1,000 stipend plus travel assistance to any illegal alien who uses the CBP home app to self-deport. According to the DHS, the $1,000 stipend will be paid after their return to their home country

has been confirmed through the app. And now it's time for critical thinking. As a reminder, this segment is not meant to be too complex. It is not meant to stump you. It is just an exercise for our brains in a world where we are constantly told how and what to think. So let's rewind to the first story of this episode, the cuts in funding for NPR and PBS.

I want you to consider the role of publicly funded media in a democracy. So the first question is, what are the potential benefits and drawbacks of having media organizations that receive government funding? Consider both the ideal scenario as well as potential pitfalls.

The second question goes deeper. How should a society like ours balance the need for independent journalism with public funding? Is it possible to have truly independent reporting when government dollars are involved? And what safeguards or structures might help maintain editorial independence while still providing public support?

That is what I have for you today. Don't forget, new newsletter goes out tomorrow. So now as of tomorrow, it'll be twice a week, Tuesdays and Fridays. You can subscribe using the link in the show notes or find Unbiased Society on Substack. Have a fantastic couple of days, next couple of days, and I will talk to you again on Thursday.