← UNBIASED Politics
UNBIASED Politics
November 6, 2025: Democrats Win All Major Races, Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Trump's Tariffs, and What We Know About Payment of SNAP Benefits. PLUS Does New Rule Ban LGBTQ Individuals From Loan Forgiveness? And More.
00:50:21
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. You chose to hit play on this podcast today. Smart Choice. Make another smart choice with Auto Quote Explorer to compare rates from multiple car insurance companies all at once. Try it@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates not available in all states or situations. Prices vary based on how you buy. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, November 6th. Let's talk about some news. But before we do, just as a quick reminder, or just kind of in case you've missed the last few episodes, within the last week or so, week and a half, we have covered the situation with SNAP benefits. We've covered Texas suing the makers of Tylenol, the new House report on Biden's use of the auto pen, why insurance premiums are set to rise in 2026. That's something a lot of people are talking about. New press restrictions in the West Wing of the White House, Trump threatening military action in Nigeria, and much, much more. So just be sure to go through the last two or three episodes. If there's a particular story that you're you're wanting to learn more about, chances are I have already covered it. And if it's not in the last two or three episodes, it may be in an episode from the last few weeks. Just make kind of go through in all of the show notes of each episode. I do list out every individual story that I cover. So, you know, let's say something made news two weeks ago. You can always go to one of my episodes from a couple of weeks ago and just check the show notes of those episodes. More likely than not, I covered it. So I just want to put that out there. But now, without further ado, let's get into today's stories, starting with this week's elections. So on Tuesday, voters across the country, they cast their ballots for both state, state and federal elections. Let's talk about some of the biggest election results, starting with California's Prop 50. California voters passed Prop 50, which which essentially allows the state legislature to redraw its congressional districts to keep up with red states that are doing the same. Now, we went into pretty significant detail a couple of weeks ago on October 23rd, so I don't want to get too into the weeds with it, but I do think it's important to talk about and just kind of rec because a lot of people were confused about this. Basically, congressional maps dictate the boundaries of the various districts within A state. All states have these maps. All states have districts. The typically, the state legislature draws the maps for each state, but it can also be drawn by other parties. And we'll get into that in a minute. The way that these maps are drawn will typically determine whether a state has more red districts or more blue districts. And the maps are typically drawn every 10 years with every federal census. But this year, certain red states, like Texas, Ohio, Missouri, they decided what they were going to do was redraw their maps early. And they can do this. Right. There's nothing that forbids them from doing it in state law, federal law, in their state constitution. They can do that by redrawing the maps. They can redraw the boundaries in a way that. That the district boundaries in a way that gives them more red districts ahead of next year's midterm elections and therefore increases the number of Republicans representing their state in Congress. So, for example, Texas redrew their maps to add up to five Republican congressional seats in 2026. It's not guaranteed that all five districts will actually flip as intended, but lawmakers drew the maps in a way that would heavily favor that outcome. So, like I said, certain states are allowed to do this whenever they want. It depends on the laws in the state as well as their state constitution. Texas, Ohio, Missouri, these are states that are allowed to do it. But in California, back in 2010, voters passed a constitutional amendment that actually changed their state constitution that took the power of drawing these district maps away from the state legislature and instead gave the power to an independent commission. And this was meant to take the partisanship out of it. Right, because if an independent commission is doing it, then the legislature is not going to draw the maps in a way that favors one one party or another. At least that's the theory. And when California voters passed this constitutional amendment, all was good and fine. The independent commission just went ahead and took over the job of drawing the maps. But this year, California wanted to keep up with the red states that are redrawing their maps to try to combat the additional, you know, red seats that are being added. Hypothetically, assuming it goes to plan in these red states, the California legislature wants to redraw the congressional districting map in California to add more blue districts. But because voters in California gave that power to the independent Commission back in 2010, the legislature basically had to ask voters to give them their power back via Prop 50. So now that Prop 50 has passed, the legislature can now enact the map that they already drew in anticipation of Prop 50 passing. And therefore, potentially add up to, I believe it's five congressional blue seats in next year's midterm elections. Notably, California Republicans have since filed a lawsuit to block this proposition. The lawsuit argues that the efforts to, you know, temporarily dismantle this independent commission and enact a new congressional map via the legislature are unconstitutional. So we'll have to see what happens with that. But for now, now that Prop 50 has passed, California is free to enact that new map. Okay, so in New York, let's switch states. Self proclaimed Democratic socialist Zoran Mamdani beat former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo for mayor of New York City. Mamdani ran on a platform of making New York City more affordable by freezing rent for rent, stabilized apartments, building more affordable housing units, making city buses free, offering free childcare for children aged six weeks to five years, and implementing city owned grocery stores. He also ran on raising the corporate tax and taxing the wealthy, the 1%, as he calls it, to be able to sort of implement those other measures that would help with affordability. He also promised to take on Trump, which includes making New York City, quote, unquote, Trump proof. Making New York City Trump proof includes ensuring immigrants are protected by strengthening the city's sanctuary city status, getting ICE out of all city facilities, and ending cooperation with ice. It also includes making New York City an LGBTQIA plus sanctuary city and protecting reproductive rights. So those are sort of the main issues that Mamdani ran on with just over 93% of the votes in MOM, Donnie secured 50.4% of the votes, Cuomo secured 41.6%, and Republican Curtis Sliwa secured just 7.1% in New Jersey. So we'll go next door. You. Democrat Mickey Sherrill won the governor's election. She received 56.2% of the vote. Sheryl is a former Navy helicopter pilot and federal prosecutor who centered her campaign on protecting abortion rights, expanding affordable housing and improving public education. A Democrat also won the governor's race in Virginia. Democrat Abigail Spanberger received 57.4% of the votes and and ran on lowering the cost of living, protecting women's reproductive rights, and reinforcing community safety. Spanberger is Virginia's first female governor. Virginia also held its state attorneys general race with Democrat Jay Jones beating the Republican incumbent. Now, this was a closely watched election as well because Jones had recently been involved in a leaked text message scandal. So in 2022, Jones sent text messages directed he sent them to someone else, but that the texts were talking about. Then Republican House Speaker Todd Gilbert. And those text messages suggested that Gilbert should be shot in the head and also wished that Gilbert's wife would have to watch her own children die in her arms, because that way, according to Jones, maybe the Gilberts would change their views on gun control. Gilbert did admit to those text messages, and he did apologize to the Gilbert family. So because of that scandal, this was a closely watched election. And then finally, the last sort of big result out of Virginia. Democrats maintained the majority in their state legislature. They even flipped 13 seats. So overall, Democrats won the major races of the night this week. And exit polling showed that voters went to the polls with worries about the economy as well as discomfort with the state of the country. Okay, let's do a relatively quick SNAP update. So over the course of the last few weeks, we've talked a lot about snap. Everything from what SNAP is to what the fight is about. The administration agreeing to pay out partial benefits as of Monday. And in Monday's episode, we talked about the fact that a court had ordered the administration to make a decision on what it was going to do about SNAP benefits. The court said that the administration is under an obligation to pay benefits, but whether the administration simply just uses what it has left in its contingency fund or taps into some additional funding somewhere else is up to the administration. And as we also talked about, the administration ended up saying, okay, we'll go ahead and exhaust the contingency fund, but that only gives us about 50% of what we usually pay out. So recipients should expect to receive roughly half of what they usually receive for any given month. Now, keep in mind, the court had told the administration that if it decided to just simply exhaust the contingency fund and not tap into any other source of funding, it would the administration would have to pay out the benefits based on by Wednesday. But it's now Thursday. Benefits have not yet been paid. So here is what we know at this point. One day after the administration filed that court filing on. So that was on Monday that it filed the court filing saying that it would pay November benefits with what was left in the contingency fund, President Trump wrote on Truth Social that SNAP benefits actually would not be sent out as long as the government was shut down. And that post sparked some confusion. So then later in the day, press secretary Caroline Levitt told reporters, quote, the administration is fully complying with the court order. I just spoke to the president about it. The recipients of these SNAP benefits need to understand it's going to take time to receive this money because the Democrats have forced the administration into a very untenable position. And quote, quote. Now remember that that court order said that as of Wednesday, those benefits had to be paid. So according to Caroline Levitt, the administration was going to fully comply with the court's order. Now, the thing is, we don't know exactly when those benefits will paid out. What we do know, though, is that it will likely take some time. And what we mean, you know, we don't know if that's, if that stays, if that's weeks, we don't know. But definitely if the administration files on Monday saying they're going to pay out the benefits, the likelihood that of those benefits being paid by Wednesday is slim. Because the way that it works is this. Based on the funds that the government has available, the individual states will need to calculate how much each SNAP recipient will get. Okay? Because it's, it's not the usual allotment because the government isn't providing 100% of the funds that it typically, you know, gives. So, so they have to do this calculation, this new calculation based on new guidelines that are provided by the government based on the funds available. Then the states need to send those amounts to the EBT processors. The EBT processors are the ones that load the EBT cards with the federal funds once they receive those federal funds and then once those EBT cards are loaded, and that's when the recipients can use them. So step one is the government providing states with guidelines based on the funding available. And that has already been completed. The guidelines were released to the states yesterday. Step two is the states now use these guidelines to calculate the benefits owed to each recipient. Step three is the states submitting those amounts to the EBT processors. And then step four, four is the EBT processors loading the cards. And again, this could take weeks for the states to calculate the new amounts. It's a whole process. It's not an easy process. It could definitely take time. We just don't know how much time. Now, the Agriculture Department, which is the department that runs the SNAP program, has said that recipients will get more money than originally anticipated for November. The administration previously estimated about 50% of the usual funds. Now the USDA is saying that that number will be closer to 65%, meaning a family will not, or an individual. The SNAP recipient will now get 65% of what they typically receive in a month, as opposed to the original estimation of 50%. So a family of four will receive about $646 for the month. We don't know exactly what caused the change, but the DOJ did call it an error that it worked to fix as soon it was as soon as it was discovered. But that is the extent that we know about, you know, the miscalculation and why that number changed. The new rate was actually disclosed in a court filing just last night. So we'll wait to see when November benefits are ultimately dispersed. But but that is what we know at this point. Let's take our first break of the episode here. When we come back, we will dive into the tariff case at the Supreme Court. I will warn you, it is dense. So use this time to kind of refresh, digest everything we just talked about. And when we come back, we'll dive into that tariff case. As the air turns a little more crisp and the holidays get a little closer, comfort becomes the best gift of all. Quince delivers layers that last, sweaters, outerwear and everyday essentials that feel, feel luxurious, look timeless and make holiday dressing and gifting effortless. Quint truly has it all and at such great prices too. I'm still not over the fact that their Mongolian cashmere sweaters start at $50 and I was actually just influenced by someone on social media to get the Mongolian structured cashmere cardigan for myself. It's the perfect cardigan for work, a holiday dinner, date night. Honestly, you can wear this cardigan anytime. It is structured so so it looks a little more polished than a regular cardigan and it cinches at the waist, so it's really flattering. I like it in the rich burgundy color and in brown too. So step into the holiday season with layers made to feel good, look polished and last. From Quince, perfect for gifting or keeping for yourself. Go to quince.comunbiased for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's quince.comunbiased to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.comunbiased DSW Designer Shoe Warehouse is the one stop shop for all your footwear needs with sneakers, boots and everything in between for every style, mood and occasion. You'll definitely find shoes that get you at prices that get your budget. DSW has what you need, but more importantly, they have what you didn't even know you wanted. You never know what you'll find at dsw. Find the shoes that get you at prices that get your budget at DSW stores or dsw.com years before I started talking about politics on a daily basis, I owned a cookie company and it was both amazing and very, very hard at the same time, front facing it was great. It was so much fun to come up with new cookie flavors and create new marketing designs and plan around the holidays. The fun stuff was fun, but then the not so fun stuff like, you know, business admin, inventory, making sure you had all the supplies you needed. Shipping that stuff was not so fun. When you're in a position where you have so many things that you have to make sure are taken care of day in and day out, you quickly realize that you have to be as efficient as possible and in as many areas of the business as you can. And when I started mapping out the business, I did a lot of research on shipping because I was about to be shipping fresh cookies all around the country. So I needed a shipping platform that was not only going to make the process seamless, but was also going to be reliable. And after hours of research, I came across shipstation. Shipstation ended up being a lifesaver for me, so much so that all these years later, I'm more than happy to have them as a sponsor of the show. But for those that have never heard of Shipstation, it's an online platform that helps businesses streamline their shipping and order fulfillment processes so you can automate shipping tasks and manage orders from a straightforward and easy to use dashboard. You can print labels with a click of a button. You get incredible shipping rates, discounts up to 90% with the major global carriers, which is huge for any type of business. There's a reason why so many businesses use shipstation. I really can't recommend it enough. So wow your customers and get rave reviews with cheaper, faster and better shipping. Upgrade to Shipstation today and get a 60 day free trial at shipstation.com and use code unbiased. There's no credit card or contract required and you can Cancel Anytime. That's shipstation.com code Unbiased. Welcome back. The justices will soon decide whether Trump's broad imposition of tariffs was within his authority, and there is a chance the court strikes down Trump's tariffs entirely. There's also a chance the court leaves them in place. So let's run through a bit of background here as well as the arguments on both sides, and then we'll talk about how the justices were feeling during oral arguments yesterday and what it could mean for the outcome of the case. Just as a warning, I gave you this warning before the break. I'm going to give it again. This story is a little dense, so as always, I will do my best to make this as digestible as possible. This There are a lot of laws that we have to talk about. Obviously, just kind of legal stuff in general is a bit dense, but if you get lost somewhere along the way, don't worry about it. Maybe just rewind and relisten at certain parts to try to keep up. But I will do my best to kind of simplify this as much as I can. As we know, earlier this year, Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on all countries across the globe. The first set of tariffs, these are often called trafficking tariffs. They specifically targeted China, Mexico, and Canada. And the reason that they're called trafficking tariffs is because these three countries were specifically targeted with these tariffs due to them not doing enough to stop the flow of fentanyl into the United States. So that's. That was the first set of tariffs. The second set of tariffs, often called reciprocal tariffs, is basically set up as a two tiered structure. So the first tier is this baseline 10% tariff, which applied universally or applies universally to imports from all countries with the exception of Canada and Mexico, because of a prior trade agreement that we have with those two countries. The second tier of the structure is what the administration calls country specific reciprocal tariffs. These tariffs are based on our trade deficit with any given country. Okay, So a trade deficit happens when a country's imports exceed its exports. So if we bring in more from, let's say, China than we send to China, which we do, we bring in more from China than we send to China, we have a trade deficit with China. And basically what the administration did to calculate the tariff on each country is, is it calculated the trade deficit that the US has with that country and divided it by our imports from that country. So, for example, our trade deficit with China is roughly $285 billion. In 2024, the US imported $439 billion worth of Chinese goods. When you divide these two numbers, you get roughly 65%. 65% was the quote, unquote, reciprocal tariff that the administration was going to charge China. So just to be clear, Mexico, Canada, and China saw country specific tariffs related to fentanyl trafficking. All 185ish countries and territories across the globe saw a 10% baseline tariff. And then there are roughly 60 countries that have this country specific reciprocal tariff on top of that 10% baseline tariff. TRUMP implemented these tariffs under what's called the International Emergency Economic Powers act, or the ieepa. You are going to hear me say the IEEPA a lot. The IEEPA is a law that gives the President the authority to regulate international commerce in response to a National emergency. Under the ieepa, the President can regulate each other imports or exports from or to foreign countries if he declares a national emergency in response to a, quote, unusual and extraordinary threat. So in this case, Trump declared a national emergency to address trade deficits. He said that the large trade deficits that the United States has with these other countries is an extraordinary and unusual threat to the national security and economy of the United States. And therefore, by declaring an emergency, he can impose these tariffs under the IEPA to regulate international commerce with these foreign countries. And perhaps he can, but here's. We don't know if he can. Perhaps he can. We don't know yet. But here's the thing. No president has ever implemented tariffs under the iepa. Historically, the IEEPA has been used to freeze assets or impose sanctions on specific countries or individuals, not just set these blanket tariffs, and that is why this case is at the Supreme Court. Various small businesses that are affected by these new tariffs, as well as various states, sued the administration, arguing that the President does not actually have the authority under the IEEPA to. To implement them, nor does he have authority under the Constitution. Before we get into both sides of this fight, though, I want to be clear about the question for the Court. The question that the justices must answer is this. Does the IEEPA give the President the power to impose tariffs, or does the authority to impose tariffs belong to Congress under the Constitution? That is the question here. So the states and businesses argue that the authority to impose tariffs belongs to Congress, not the President. More specifically, they say, not only is the Constitution clear that Congress has the sole power to impose and collect taxes and duties, but the IEEPA was never meant to let presidents impose tariffs. And the IEEPA doesn't mention tariffs or taxes at all. And no President has ever used it to impose tariffs before. In their view, the phrase regulating imports, which is what the IEPA allows, is not the same thing as taxing imports. And if it were, it would, as the plaintiffs argue, completely change how hundreds of other laws have been interpreted for hundreds of years that also use the phrase regulating imports. Now, the plaintiffs also argued that using the IEPA this way would raise serious constitutional issues. So first, they say that it would violate what's known as the major questions doctrine. That doctrine basically means that if a President wants to take an action with major economic or political consequences, something that affects the entire country, Congress has to clearly give them that power in writing. It can't just be assumed from vague language in a statute. Congress has to explain explicitly, say you have X power. And then second, the plaintiffs argue that that allowing Trump to impose tariffs under the IEPA would violate the non delegation doctrine, which is the idea that Congress can't just hand over its core powers to the President or any other branch of government for that matter, without clear limits. So in this case, they argue that letting the President decide when and how much and for how long to tax imports would effectively give the executive branch unlimited control over something the Constitution specifically reserves for Congress. And Congress has not put clear limits on that power. Therefore, this giving Trump the power to impose tariffs, which is Congress's role, would violate the non delegation doctrine. Now, on the other side of the debate, the Trump administration argues that these tariffs were completely legal under the ieepa. They say that Congress gave the President in the IEEPA the power to regulate importation and that tariffs are one of the most common ways to do that. In the Administration's view, when Congress said the President could regulate imports, that naturally included the ability to impose tariffs, since tariffs are a traditional tool for controlling how and when goods enter the country. The administration also pushes back on the idea that this gives the President. Allowing the President to impose tariffs under the IEPA gives the President unlimited power. The Administration points out that the iepa, along with another law called the National Emergencies act, already limits what a President can do with national emergencies. For example, national emergencies automatically expire after one year unless they're renewed. And there are several reporting and oversight requirements that that let Congress monitor and even override the President's decision. So this isn't an unlimited authority. Congress has placed limits on the President's authority. And then, as for the major questions doctrine, the Administration argues that that doctrine doesn't apply here because it only comes into play when a law is vague or unclear. But the IEEPA is straightforward and clearly gives the President the authority to regulate imports. So again, those are the arguments on both sides. But what the Justices have to answer here is, does the IEEPA give the President the authority to impose tariffs or not? And keep in mind, there are two key underlying questions here. So number one is, does, does regulation of importation equate to the imposition of taxes, or are they two different things? And then the second question is, are tariffs taxes? Because the Constitution is clear that Congress has the sole power to tax, the President doesn't have that power. So if tariffs and taxes are the same thing, then that power cannot just be delegated to the President. The Administration says that tariffs and taxes are different, but the plaintiffs argued they are the same thing. So just keep those underlying issues in mind as we go through the Justice's comments and concerns. Overall, during oral arguments, the Justices did express skepticism on both sides, but it seems as if they are more skeptical of the administration's arguments. And we'll take this justice by Justice. We'll start with the Court's three liberal justices, and then we'll make our way to the more conservative justices. So Justice Kagan was all about emphasizing that under the Constitution, it is Congress, not the president, that has the power to impose taxes and regulate foreign commerce. Her concern was that allowing the President to use the IEPA to, to impose tariffs would effectively let the executive branch take over powers that explicitly belong to Congress. Justice Sotomayor questioned the administration's arguments that tariffs are not taxes. She pointed out that tariffs generate revenue from American consumers and businesses, which is no different than a tax because, remember, a tariff is something that the American importer pays to the Treasury Department. It is not paid by the foreign nation. If we put a tariff on China, China does not pay that tariff. It is the American importer who is importing Chinese products that pay that tariff. So Sotomayor was emphasizing that, you know, this is, this is a tax, in her view, and the taxing power is a congressional power. And she says that just simply calling it something else, calling it a tariff, doesn't change that reality. Justice Jackson focused on the history and purpose of the ieepa. She noted that the IEEPA was actually specifically written to limit presidential power after earlier presidents had abused similar authority under a previous law. The IEPA was almost like a, a clarifying law, if you will. So she found it a bit inconsistent to now interpret the IEEPA as giving the President, you know, what she called nearly unlimited economic power. Now, moving to the Court's conservative justices, Justice Gorsuch, he had two big constitutional concerns with the administration's arguments. His concerns were more about how far the President's power could go if Trump's interpretation of the IEPA were accepted by the Court. So he asked whether, under the administration's logic, Congress could just hand over all of its responsibilities to the President. Gorsuch was essentially warning that if the Court allowed this kind of power grab to stand in, it could set a precedent for future presidents to claim even broader control over areas that the Constitution clearly gives to Congress. And the second thing he was concerned about is he warned that giving the President such broad powers under the IEPA could lead to what he called a one way ratchet problem. So basically, once a President gains this kind of authority, it's hard for Congress to take it back because the President has the power to veto any bill that Congress passes. So if Congress passed a law to take back, you know, a power that it gave to the President, the President has the power to veto that law. So in, in Gorsuch's view, the power, the President's power could just keep expanding with every administration because of the President's veto power. Justice Barrett questioned whether there was any precedent in history or law where the phrase regulate imports or regulate importation was used to give a President taxing authority. She seemed doubtful that the IEPA should be read that broadly. And she noted that previous uses of the IEPA typically involved sanctions on specific countries or industries in response to a national emergency, not. Not a blanket tariff on imports. But Barrett also voiced skepticism on the other side, too. She wondered how the IEPA can allow the President to shut down all trade with another country in response to a national emergency, because it does, but not allow the President to impose tariffs, which in her view is a much smaller and less significant action. Justice Kavanaugh also questioned this idea. He called it a quote, odd donut hole, end quote, in how the IEEPA might function. Another concern that Justice Barrett had is what would happen if the plaintiff's arguments were accepted by the court and the tariffs were deemed to be invalid. And in response to that, the plaintiff suggested reimbursements. But Barrett noted that it's just to. To reimburse for all of the tariffs that have already been paid would be what she called a complete mess. Justice Samuel Alito. He seemed more sympathetic towards the administration's arguments than. Than the other Justices. He asked the plaintiffs whether in a situation where there was an imminent threat of war with a powerful enemy whose economy was heavily dependent on US Trade, the President could, under the iepa, impose a tariff as a way to avoid war. And Alito seemed to believe that in that case, the President would have that power. And he kind of implied that if he would have the power to impose tariffs in that situation, why wouldn't he have the power to impose tariffs now under the same law? So like I said, while the Justices expressed skepticism on both sides, it did seem as if the Justices are more skeptical of the administration's position. As for what we can expect from here, we don't know when they'll release their decision. It could be weeks, it could be months. But once they do release their decision, it could go a few different ways. So for one, the Justices could say, yeah, the President does have authority to impose tariffs under the IEPA and therefore uphold the tariffs. However, that avenue is not looking likely at this point. Another possibility is the justices say, no, the President doesn't have the authority to impose tariffs under the iepa and and therefore we're going to strike the tariffs down. A third possibility is that the justices say, look, we don't think the President has the authority to impose tariffs under the IEPA and therefore we're going to strike down the tariffs, but we're not going to require that the tariffs that have been paid thus far be reimbursed. This is just kind of going to be a proactive decision. And you know, presidents can't use the IEPA to impose tariffs in the future, but what's done is done and we're going to let that go. The court might also get a bit more specific and actually say when a president has the authority under the IPA to impose tariffs and when he doesn't. So there are certainly multiple ways that this can go. Once we have a decision, I will of course update you. I warned you that that was going to be a bit of a dense explanation. So let's take a second to digest all of that. We'll take our second break here and when we come back, we will finish this episode. We're going with quick hitters, rumor has it, and critical thinking. You've probably heard of HelloFresh. They're America's number one meal kit for a reason. They make home cooking so easy with chef crafted recipes and fresh ingredients delivered right to your door. But this fall, HelloFresh is really leveling up. This is not the hellofresh you remember. It's bigger, healthier and tastier. They've doubled their menu so they now offer 100 options every week. That means new seasonal dishes, more global flavors and tons of variety. And if you're trying to eat a little cleaner, they have you covered there too. You can pick from over 15 high protein recipes each week like grass fed ribeyes or lamb chops. Or you can opt for veggie meals that now pack two or more veggies per dish. The flavor is also even better than before. You can now get steak and seafood recipes every week for no extra cost with triple the seafood options. There's a reason it's America's number one choice for home cooking. And there's a reason I use HelloFresh. I the best way to cook just got better. Go to hellofresh.comunbiased10fm now to get 10 free meals and a free breakfast for life. One per box with active subscription free meals applied as discount on first box. New subscribers only. Varies by plan. That's hellofresh.comUnbiased10FM as in unbiased 10 free meals to get 10 free meals and a free breakfast for Life. And that's HelloFresh.comUnbiased10FM the one feeling that we are all chasing this time of year is cozy. The cooler weather just makes us want to be cozier and Bombas is here to help. Bombas has the socks, slippers, T shirts and basically everything to get you there. Bombas also has the answer to all of your gifting needs this holiday season. So maybe you have a friend that loves running marathons. Get them some Bombas running socks. Maybe you have a neighbor that just had a baby. Get them some baby Bombas socks. Maybe your parents slippers are just a few years too old and they wear them every single day of their life. Get them a new pair of slippers. And speaking of slippers, Bombas really stepped up their game this season. They've introduced new shapes and styles. Think fluffy, suede, cozy. All the best things. And the best part is that for every pair of Bombas you purchase, Bombas donates one to someone facing homelessness on your behalf. So anytime you get something cozy, someone else does too. Head over to bombas.comunbiased and use code UNBIASED for 20% off your first purchase. That's B O M B A S.comUnbiased code UNBIASED at checkout bombus.comunbiased and use code Unbiased at checkout for 20% off your first purchase. A I had the time of my life. Life. Hey, I never felt this way before. From building timelines to assigning the right people and even spotting risks across dozens of projects, Monday Sidekick knows your business, thinks ahead and takes action. One Click on the star and consider it done. And I owe it all to you. Try Monday Sidekick AI you'll love to use on Monday.com welcome back. Let's do some quick hitters. The FAA says 40 major airports around the country will see a 10% reduction in flights starting Friday if the government remains closed. The cuts are meant to keep airspace safe amid staffing shortages, given that air traffic controllers have been working without pay since October 1st, and many have been working six days a week with mandatory overtime, and a lot of them are calling out of work. The list of airports that will see the cuts include airports in Atlanta, Dallas, New York City, LA, Miami, and many others. Former Vice President Dick Cheney died this week at the age of 84. Per the family's statement, his cause of death was complications from pneumonia and cardiac and vascular disease. Cheney served as vice president from 2001 to 2009 under President George W. Bush. Nancy Pelosi announced she will not seek re election upon the expiration of her current term. Pelosi has served in Congress for the last 40 years and and during her time became the first and only female speaker of the House of Representatives. In a statement, she said in part, quote, I have truly loved serving as your voice in Congress and I have always honored the song of St. Francis. Lord, make an instrument of thy peace the anthem of our city. That is why I want you, my fellow San Franciscans, to be the first to know I will not be seeking re election to Congress. End quote. The current shutdown is now the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. On Wednesday, the shutdown entered its 36th day, which broke the previous record set set during the 20182019 shutdown. Two men have been arrested in connection with the explosion at Harvard Medical School. On Saturday, the FBI's Boston field office announced that 18 year old Logan David Patterson and 20 year old Dominic Frank Cardoza were arrested and charged with one count of conspiracy to damage by means of explosive and notably, the government did not seek detention of the suspects. According to prosecutors, the suspects set off a Roman candle firework around 2:45am which went off inside of a wooden locker in the fourth floor research lab. Video footage caught the men entering the building by climbing scaffolding on the side of the building. And the Trump administration said the IRS's direct file platform will not be available during next year's filing season. The Direct File platform, which has been running for two filing seasons now, was introduced by President Biden. And Republicans had criticized the platform, calling it a waste of taxpayer money because free filing programs already exist from private companies. But supporters of the platform liked how easy to use it was. So following an announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessense the private sector can do a better job than the government when it comes to offering filing platforms and and therefore they are going to cut it to save taxpayer dollars. Per a report from the IRS, roughly 296,000 taxpayers submitted accepted returns for the 2025 tax season through Direct File, which was up from the roughly 140,000 submitted accepted returns in 2024. Okay, time for Rumor has It. This is my weekly segment where I address recent rumors submitted by all of you and and then I either Confirm them, dispel them, or add context. So today we have three. First, one rumor has it that the Trump administration issued a new rule barring LGBTQ individuals from receiving student loan forgiveness. This claim, which has spread widely across social media, is false, and it comes from a misreading or a misinterpretation of the rules language. So to be clear, this new rule does not target LGBTQ individuals. Rather, it applies to employers that are seeking eligibility for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program and are engaged in what the Administration calls illegal activity. So, in other words, this rule gives the Education Department the power to exclude organizations that have a quote, unquote, separate substantial illegal purpose from the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program. Now, in practice, what this means is that if an organization has what the Administration considers to be a a substantial illegal purpose, that organization's employees will not be eligible for loan forgiveness because the organization itself will not be eligible for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness certification. So now we have to talk about what the Administration considers to be a substantial illegal purpose. Per the Administration, activities indicative of a substantial illegal purpose include aiding and abetting violations of federal immigration laws, supporting terrorism or engaging in violence for the purpose of obstructing or influencing federal government policy, engaging in the chemical and surgical castration or mutilation of children in violation of federal or state law, engaging in the trafficking of children to another state for purposes of emancipation from their lawful parents in violation of federal or state law, engaging in a pattern of aiding and abetting illegal discrimination and engaging in a pattern of violating state laws. So for purposes of this rumor, we really just need to focus on the chemical and surgical castration or mutilation of children part. Okay. The phrase chemical and surgical mutilation refers to the Administration's definition as set forth in a prior Executive Order. And that definition is as follows. The phrase chemical and surgical mutilation means the use of puberty blockers to delay the onset or progression of normally timed puberty in an individual who does not identify as his or her sex the use of sex hormones to align an individual's physical appearance with an identity that differs from his or her sex and surgical procedures that attempt to transform an individual's physical appearance to align with an identity that differs from his or her sex or that attempt to alter or remove an individual's sexual organs to minimize or destroy their natural biological functions. That is the Administration's definition, and that definition applies to all individuals under the age of 19. So if we piece all of this together, this new rule allows the Education Department to deny PSLF certification for organizations that are involved in the aforementioned treatments and procedures for individuals under the age of 19. Therefore, if an individual works for such an organization, that individual may not be eligible for Public Service Loan Forgiveness because their employer won't have the requisite certification. So again, just to be very clear, this rule does not target LGBTQ individuals. It targets organizations and employers and can potentially affect employees of those organizations. Also note that that rule has not yet taken effect. It is set to take effect on July 1, 2026. Second, one rumor has it that ice through tear gas Outskirts side of a Chicago elementary school this is another one making the rounds on social media, so let's add some context. The truth is, I'll just tell you right off the bat that ICE threw tear gas across the street from an elementary school. Not right outside of the school, but a first grade teacher in Chicago said she had to shut her windows while some of her students were coughing, crying and panicking because of the tear gas. Now, what we know is that ICE was conducting a raid on a grocery store across the street from that school. During that raid, ICE agents through tear gas canisters into the grocery store parking lot. Meanwhile, at the school across the street, this first grade teacher had opened her windows to, as reported by the Intercept, quote, let in the unusually warm October breeze, end quote. The teacher claims, per the intercepts reporting, that the tear gas from the grocery store parking lot made its way across the street towards the school where she was holding class and she was forced to shut her windows while her students felt the effects of the gas. I am unable to confirm or deny the authenticity of the teacher's claims, but that is what we know at this point. If more develops, I will let you know. But that's, that's just what we know as of now. And then last one, rumor has it that ICE agents stormed a daycare in Chicago and dragged a teacher out in front of her children. Again, this is another one making its rounds on social media. The way that this one is worded is a little bit tough, so I'm going to say let's add some context to it. On Wednesday, ICE agents did in fact enter a daycare facility and remove a woman who they later placed in handcuffs. It has not been definitively confirmed whether that woman worked at the daycare, but a DHS official said that it appears that was the case. And then an eyewitness, which we'll talk about in a minute, said, or I guess referred to this woman as a teacher. Now, it's unclear exactly why this woman was detained, but DHS officials say that she is here illegally from Colombia. And what we know at this point from the DHS is that the woman and one other individual fled in ICE vehicle pursuit following an attempted traffic stop, and the two individuals ran into the daycare. One of the, one of the people who fled locked the door behind them. The, the woman who was ultimately detained did not, and that's how ICE agents were able to detain her in. Eyewitness said that he had gotten to the school around 6:55am to drop his kid off and parked in the parking lot while he waited for the school to open. Around 7:05am he saw a black car pull into the parking lot, followed by an suv. But he said neither car was driving, quote, particularly fast, end quote. He then said that the black car came to a stop, a teacher got out and ran into the school through two sets of doors. And that's when an ICE agent grabbed one of those doors as it was shutting and held it open as other agents entered the school. He then saw two agents grab the woman's arm and drag her outside where she was handcuffed and put into the suv. Apparently this all happened as parents were arriving to drop their kids off. Per the school's website, the school opens at 7am so this happened about five minutes after opening, per that eyewitness's account. All right, let's finish this episode with some critical thinking for those that are new here. This is just an exercise to, you know, get our brains going, get us to think a little bit, challenge our own opinions a little bit. We're constantly told how and what we should think. And this is just a reminder that we are very capable of thinking for ourselves and also a reminder that sometimes it's okay to challenge our existing opinions. So for, for today's segment, we're just going to piggyback, piggyback off that last rumor has it story and talk about the ICE detaining the woman at the, the daycare. The first set of questions is for those of you who support, support immigration enforcement actions regardless of where they take place, whether they take place at a school or a church, doesn't matter where they take place. You support these immigration enforcement actions. If a citizen child happens to witness their parents arrest inside of a daycare or inside of a church, does, does the government have any obligation to protect that child from, from, from any sort of trauma? Or do you, do you consider this to be, do you consider emotional fallout just simply the cost of enforcing the law? And then second if the same logic were applied to other agencies, like let's say that the IRS or the FBI entered schools to detain parents in front of children for fraud or tax evasion, would you be okay with that, or would you consider that to be government overreach? And if you find that the two situations are different, what makes them different in your view? The next set of questions is for those of you who oppose immigration enforcement actions in all capacities. If an officer refuses to enforce a law that they personally disagree with, could that set a precedent for selective enforcement across other issues, too? So I'm going to give you a hypothetical. Would it be acceptable, in your eyes for an officer to refuse to enforce child trafficking laws simply because they disagree with how those laws are written? And if not, where are you drawing that line? What justifies an officer enforcing the law in one scenario but not in the other? And then finally, this last set of questions is for those of you who support immigration enforcement, but only in limited situations. And we're going to assume those limited situations are what are called sensitive locations, like churches and schools. So this question assumes that you support immigration enforcement actions, but not in these, quote, unquote sensitive locations. In your opinion, what qualifies as an acceptable setting for enforcement and what doesn't? And then if ICE can't make arrests in these, quote, unquote sensitive locations, like I said, schools, churches, how do you suggest the agency handle cases where suspects are deliberately seeking refuge in those places to avoid arrest? Should those individuals just automatically be protected despite breaking the law? Or. Or how. How does the government go about that? That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. Have a fantastic weekend, and I will talk to you again on Monday.