Latest / Project 2028 / One Big Beautiful Bill, Trump vs. CASA, and more

Transcript

One Big Beautiful Bill, Trump vs. CASA, and more · Project 2028

0:03
Welcome to Project 2028. It's been quite a hiatus,
0:07
so we have quite a few topics to cover today.
0:11
It's just me now. Luchana is out visiting her
0:14
grandparents. She will appear in a guest segment
0:18
at the end. We have so much to talk about the
0:21
budget and tax bill, the U .S. credit rating,
0:24
impending Supreme Court case, Michael Waltz,
0:28
and the restructuring of part of the executive
0:31
branch, actually. And a few other things, just,
0:35
you know, patchwork covered up. We've had finals,
0:39
so it's been quite a while since we've recorded.
0:42
But thank you for putting up with it, and we
0:44
hope you enjoy the episode. Let's get into it.
0:53
Kind of the elephant in the room, obviously,
0:55
is the budget and tax bill. But firstly, before
0:57
we talk about that, I would like to extend my
1:00
heart to every single congressman. who had to
1:03
stay up for like 36 hours in committee debating
1:06
a 1 ,000 -page bill that I've read part of it,
1:10
like 20 pages, is impossible to read. It is its
1:16
own like anesthetic. It puts you to sleep. The
1:19
guy who fell asleep would have probably been
1:21
you and I, Ryan, if you were in that room. I
1:23
felt so bad. He has a broken arm. His wife mocked
1:29
him about how he does that in church every week.
1:32
I couldn't do it, but it's incredible what you'll
1:36
do to get a bill passed through Congress. And
1:39
now on a less satire note and on the actual content
1:43
of the bill, it basically codifies the Trump
1:47
2017 tax cuts, which were tax cuts to almost
1:51
every income bracket. Notably, what Democrats
1:56
have been pushing about is the 1 .5 % tax cut
1:59
from 39. So what is it? 37 and a half um uh that
2:06
trump had was part of the 2017 cuts and will
2:08
be most likely part of this bill um unless it
2:11
gets marked up in congress well this is published
2:13
um two trillion dollars in spending reductions
2:17
uh it builds even more a bit on the 2017 tax
2:22
cuts um you know i don't understand Most notably,
2:26
$880 billion from programs under the Energy and
2:30
Commerce Committee, which is affecting Medicaid
2:32
and public health initiatives, is part of that
2:36
$2 trillion. Well, yeah, that's something. First
2:38
thing, Energy and Commerce Committee. I was researching
2:41
it. I was looking into it when I took notes of
2:43
this. I don't fully understand why Medicaid is
2:47
delegated to that committee, but that is beyond
2:51
my pay grade. But on a more interesting note,
2:56
Democrats have made quite a scene over this Medicaid
3:00
– what would you call it? It's not necessarily
3:03
cutting. It's just restricting or making the
3:07
qualifications harder. And they've seen it to
3:10
be, from what they've been saying, the biggest
3:15
cuts to Medicaid ever. And I was looking at it,
3:18
and basically it says if you don't have a dependent,
3:21
so you're not – caring for either a baby or an
3:24
elderly parent and you are able -bodied and not
3:28
disabled obviously um to qualify for medicare
3:32
you need to work 80 hours a week and to be honest
3:35
i mean if you're qualifying for a government
3:37
subsidy not even subsidy just a program that
3:39
will give you you know basically um free free
3:43
medical insurance you know i don't understand
3:47
why there's so much uh opposition to this this
3:49
is it seems to only make sense um uh but from
3:55
from where i'm coming from sorry clarify it seems
3:57
to make sense that they want you to work a certain
4:00
amount of time yeah to qualify for government
4:02
program because obviously if you work you pay
4:04
taxes and unless you're and you actually there
4:06
is a provision uh you can volunteer for 80 hours
4:09
um but you have to do something and prove it
4:12
uh to qualify it you know i've been seeing so
4:16
much made of this l please tell me Like, why?
4:22
It is almost mind -boggling that they're getting
4:24
this mad about this. It's going to cut 2 .5 million
4:26
people off Medicaid, but those people don't have
4:29
dependents, they're able -bodied, and they're
4:31
not working. It doesn't seem to make any sense.
4:34
Are we 100 % positive that all of these people
4:37
are able -bodied? Well, if you are disabled,
4:40
you can get Medicaid. Okay, so to what extent?
4:45
there's a lot of like kind of issue with what
4:48
is considered like disabled and like not fully
4:52
able to like perform your job function and a
4:55
lot of it is like a lot of people who have certain
4:58
disabilities aren't like seen as necessarily
5:01
like disabled yes yeah qualified as it yeah yeah
5:07
yeah um but that would you know affect them and
5:10
they might not be able to work these 80 hours
5:12
but they're not I mean, well, look, if you're
5:16
not working eight hours, I understand. Maybe
5:18
you have something that prevents you from doing
5:19
that. But there's other ways, as I said, volunteering.
5:23
You can do that in many different aspects. And
5:25
not only that, but if you're not volunteering
5:27
and not working, 80 hours a week is not that
5:30
much. If you do the math, it's very little. Like,
5:34
what are they doing every day? Brian, how many
5:36
hours are we in school a week? I actually did
5:39
the math in my head. So we are in school for,
5:41
I think it's seven hours a day. um five days
5:44
a week assuming each month has um 20 days so
5:48
seven times five so 35 wait what so sorry seven
5:53
seven times 20 um which would be uh 140 hours
5:58
um i thought it was 80 hours a week or is it
6:03
80 hours a month 80 hours uh no it's 80 hours
6:06
a month i'm not sure i'm sorry if i said a week
6:08
eight hours a week is crazy um Sorry, I might
6:11
have been me. No, I think I might have said it
6:15
wrong, but it is 80 hours a month. School vastly
6:18
exceeds that. It's not particularly hard to volunteer
6:22
or work for that many hours. And I just I see
6:24
it as completely unreasonable. But even Republicans,
6:28
there have been some Republicans who have said.
6:31
that they need to stop messing with. Trump actually
6:34
came in and talked with Republican leaders and
6:37
told them to stop effing around with Medicaid
6:39
in those words to their faces. But I mean, I
6:45
think this is quite a good compromise. It makes
6:47
sense. It cuts a ton of money from the fact that
6:50
we're spending 65 % of the annual budget on social
6:55
safety net programs, including obviously Medicaid.
6:58
um and obviously if you're if you're 65 plus
7:01
you have medicare and that's that doesn't require
7:04
any work so um look that's my take on the medicaid
7:08
part of it i don't know if the money i don't
7:10
know i personally feel like the money we are
7:12
or like we're trying to reduce probably shouldn't
7:15
be being taken from medical insurance especially
7:18
when my dad works in healthcare and the healthcare
7:21
system is crazy in america it is Crazy expensive
7:26
your insurance really doesn't do very much unless
7:28
you have like crazy good insurance, which really
7:31
no one does and so I don't know I feel like that's
7:35
not money or that's not the place where I personally
7:38
would be cutting funding from but Well, I mean
7:42
it does make up 65 % of budget, which is quite
7:45
a lot not just Medicaid But just Social Security
7:47
Medicaid Medicare, but where would you cut it
7:49
from? I mean? Well, it's negotiable for the United
7:53
States, right? Defense has been non -negotiable.
7:56
But when you look at DOGE, this is the thing
7:58
that they should be going after. Obviously, you
8:00
have to pass laws and bills to get this stuff
8:03
done. You can't just use this with executive
8:05
power. But cutting the federal workforce, the
8:09
federal workforce is 2 % to 3 % of the annual
8:11
budget, I think. If I were DOGE, this is what
8:16
I would be going after. I would be trying to
8:18
make common sense stuff like this. But no, it
8:23
totally makes sense that this is where they're
8:25
cutting the money from, like. In the in the government
8:29
view of it, but as someone who like as a citizen,
8:33
it's not like from an from an outside perspective,
8:37
it's not the place I would be looking to cut
8:39
money from, but from a. Does that make sense?
8:43
I mean, I mean, kind of like, look, nobody is
8:46
going to be happy that you're cutting anything
8:49
anywhere. There's always interest groups and
8:51
people who don't want you to cut the money. There's
8:52
people whose jobs depend on it. Obviously, social
8:57
safety programs have been, let's just say, contested
9:01
on cutting since they've existed. Social security
9:06
has been expanded and shrunken progressively,
9:10
along with Obamacare, the whole crazy 24 -hour
9:17
filibuster. and just the fact that, and we'll
9:21
talk about this in a second, the impact that
9:23
these programs have on the credit of the United
9:26
States. But I think if you're looking at the
9:29
pie, of the pie to cut, this is the part that
9:32
needs cutting. Not the 2 % to 3 % of the federal
9:35
workforce, but the 65 % of the money that is
9:39
just re -given to the people who need it. Yeah,
9:44
I was going to say, where are they reallocating
9:46
this money? Where is the funding that they're
9:49
cutting now going towards? Well, it's not necessarily
9:52
going towards anywhere. Because this bill is
9:55
still going to run a deficit, but it is going
9:58
to reduce the deficit that this bill would run,
10:00
and it's going to help fund the tax cuts. Do
10:04
you get that kind of? Yeah. Yeah? Yeah, I don't.
10:10
Well, basically, the bill is going to run a deficit
10:12
no matter what. If they don't cut this, it's
10:14
just going to run a huge deficit. And, again,
10:16
we'll talk about credit later. The U .S. has
10:18
been in debt since its inception. Like, it doesn't
10:21
really do much for us. I don't know. Well, I
10:26
mean, yes, but then again, you've seen Treasury
10:29
rates skyrocket over the past week. And we're
10:32
going to – well, actually – Let's just get into
10:35
it. This is a perfect thing. Do you want to start
10:38
the credit rating discussion or no? No, go ahead.
10:41
All right. So as we've just been talking about,
10:44
this is perfect, you know, segue. Moody's downgraded
10:50
the U .S. credit rating. There's three major
10:52
credit ratings agencies, and they were the last
10:56
one. It went from AAA, which is the highest bar.
10:59
I think we were the only ones possibly to have
11:03
it, maybe a few other Western nations, to AA1,
11:08
which is just. one lower. It still means the
11:11
U .S. is incredibly likely to pay back their
11:14
debt, but it has pushed treasuries significantly
11:18
up. The 30 -year yield is now at something like
11:21
5 point something percent, which means if you
11:24
put your money in for 30 years, they'll give
11:26
you 5 percent annual. They cited rising deficits,
11:31
long -term debt projections. We're going to have
11:34
nearly $40 billion in debt. This bill is projected
11:37
to you know, $40 trillion in debt, sorry, to
11:43
the U .S. national debt by the time this bill,
11:44
the appropriations and stuff for this bill expire
11:47
and the tax cuts and all that has to be rerun.
11:52
But, you know, there's concerns over the debt
11:54
sustainability. And obviously the Fed hasn't
11:58
really done much in cutting rates or anything
12:01
over the past while. But you see these treasuries,
12:07
which is the faith in U .S. government, just
12:08
like literally, I mean, at least for U .S. treasury,
12:11
skyrocketing. And they're quite volatile. Elle,
12:16
thoughts? Not much. I don't know. All the money
12:23
stuff gets me a little lost in the head. I mean,
12:27
okay. How, like, to what point? Like, what's
12:32
the cap out? How much debt can we go into? Because
12:35
it doesn't, like, we're doing something to, like,
12:40
reduce the amount of debt, but we still have
12:41
$40 trillion in debt. $32 trillion. And $6 trillion
12:47
of that is intergovernmental debt, which is,
12:49
it's very complicated. Yeah. Yeah, no, but the
12:56
thing is, is that that debt is all owed to...
13:00
well, either hedge funds or consumers or whoever
13:02
it is. But it gets to a point where it's not
13:07
sustainable. Right now, we're carrying roughly
13:09
112 % of our debt relative to GDP. So our debt
13:15
is 112 % of our annual gross domestic product.
13:21
We're quite high. There are higher countries.
13:24
Japan is at 205%, which is very... very um hard
13:29
and unsustainable um obviously i think from what
13:34
i've like i listened to something about japan
13:36
um they have a thing with seniors and that they're
13:39
having to pay a lot of pensions or something
13:41
um so obviously there's reasons um but you know
13:46
at this point the debt's unsustainable and l
13:49
on your topic of how much debt can we raise there
13:51
is a amount they have to move it every time um
13:55
on on the max and this is the whole when the
13:59
republicans controlled the congress during joe
14:01
biden's tenure um or lack thereof of a tenure
14:05
but um they there were constant fights over the
14:10
fact that they would raise and well they would
14:12
raise and then the freedom caucus will want them
14:14
to cap it at a certain point because they have
14:17
to raise it every so every while to fund more
14:20
spending um but there's well well this kind of
14:24
ties in the freedom caucus is this super um fiscally
14:27
conservative caucus, so a party within a party
14:32
of Republicans that live in very safe districts
14:35
away from people who would be very mad if they
14:38
cut Medicaid or Medicare or Social Security.
14:40
And they really want these incredible cuts, and
14:43
they have immense control because of the fact
14:45
that there's almost no margin for error in Congress.
14:50
Okay, so let me just sum up everything you just
14:54
said, or at least attempt to sum up. We owe a
14:57
bunch of money to hedge funds. Well, any number
15:01
of people. Not just hedge funds. We just owe
15:04
a bunch of money. We tell investors, yeah. And
15:06
then we basically just don't really, well, we
15:09
do things about it, but, like, not enough things
15:12
because each year we have to, like, pretend like
15:14
we're raising the mat or, like, this is our,
15:16
like, we're only going to go to, like, $30 trillion.
15:19
And then we raise it up to, like, $35 trillion.
15:22
So, like, really we're going more into debt so
15:24
that we can solve our debt. Yeah, kind of. I
15:27
mean, you need to raise the cap of how much we
15:29
can borrow and how much the deficit can be on
15:33
per year, per year basis, and also just for debt
15:37
sustainability. But, you know, that's it. The
15:42
credit down rating, it's not that big of a deal.
15:45
Obviously push treasuries up. So when the Fed
15:48
goes to auction the treasuries, they don't get
15:51
as much, you know. from it because they're having
15:56
to pay higher rates than they used to. Not a
16:00
huge, big deal. It's more symbolic of where the
16:02
U .S. debt is kind of falling because a lot of
16:07
people don't see it in their daily lives. Nobody
16:09
does. But it gets to be unsustainable when you're
16:13
at places like 200, 300 percent of national GDP.
16:18
But even when you're in the United States, when
16:20
you have this much money, it's... incredibly
16:24
hard to structure. And it gets to a point where
16:28
credit agencies will start seeing it as irresponsible.
16:32
And I think there's a lot of members of the Freedom
16:34
Caucus that agree with what Moody's did the other
16:36
day in downgrading the U .S. credit due to the
16:38
fact that we've been borrowing so much. Interesting.
16:43
Okay, let's flip to our next topic that's a little
16:46
less... uh money and number based and let's talk
16:50
about the i want to say casa because i am a spanish
16:53
student but ryan is very adamant that it's casa
16:56
it's casa et al there's other people that do
16:59
it so that's the official name but see it's the
17:03
it's the spanish student in me it might be casa
17:07
i just know there's other people so you want
17:09
to say et al after it ryan and luciana other
17:12
people in the litigation okay ryan and luciana
17:15
take french so Alright. No. Okay, so basically,
17:20
this is a case that is trying to kind of... Basically,
17:26
okay, lower courts are appealing one of the executive
17:29
orders. Well, the lower courts don't appeal.
17:31
Sorry. Sorry. Do you want to explain it? No,
17:36
no, you got it. That was the one thing. You go
17:39
for it, Ryan. Sorry. There are people who are
17:42
affected by Trump's executive orders who go to
17:44
a lower court, district courts usually, and they
17:47
will file a motion. If the district court finds
17:49
it to be illegal, they may issue a nationwide
17:51
injunction. These nationwide injunctions are,
17:54
as I just said, nationwide. The question is,
17:58
this is just Cole's notes, should a district
18:01
court judge, remember these are people very low
18:04
in the system, these are not appeals judges,
18:07
they are not... These are very low judges in
18:10
the grand scheme of things. Should they be able
18:12
to issue nationwide injunctions or just injunctions
18:14
for the circuit that they represent? Obviously,
18:17
I think there's nine circuits. I might be wrong
18:20
about that in the United States. So they can
18:23
obviously issue stuff for their circuit, but
18:25
are they allowed to issue nationwide stuff, stuff
18:27
that the Supreme Court would always be able to
18:30
issue, but would they be able to issue it unilaterally
18:33
throughout the United States? Okay. And so...
18:38
Sorry, I lost my notes and then I zoned you out.
18:41
So I actually don't know what you just said.
18:42
Where are we going from here? It challenges the
18:46
fact that district court judges who are very
18:48
low on the spectrum can challenge nationwide
18:50
injunctions. So how basically how much power
18:54
small judges can have over a nationwide policy
18:56
or if they just control their circuit that they're
19:00
in policy wise. um when it comes to the interpretation
19:04
of the constitution or the law that is uh mentioned
19:08
at the case okay perfect and so the whole kind
19:12
of the whole reason the supreme court case came
19:14
about is that the um lower courts were like kind
19:21
of challenging the executive order that he issued
19:25
earlier this year which It basically seeks to
19:28
end birthright citizenship for people born to
19:32
illegal immigrants after a certain date. Do you
19:37
know what the date is? I do not. Yeah, but yeah,
19:42
it's quite complicated. Because, sorry, on the
19:48
nationwide injunctions part of it, if it's not
19:52
a nationwide injunction, it can... get really
19:54
weird because some people would have citizenship
19:56
somewhere. You might be in Maryland, and then
19:59
you go to California, and you might be a citizen
20:02
in one and not a citizen in the other. So it
20:06
kind of presents a huge problem because being
20:10
a citizen gives you privileges in this country,
20:13
obviously, that non -citizens don't have. Just
20:17
for example, being able to travel more freely
20:20
and getting a passport, would your passport expire
20:24
when you went to a state that didn't recognize
20:25
your citizenship? It gets extremely complicated.
20:28
And that's why maybe the nationwide injunction,
20:30
this was the argument from the Solicitor General
20:34
from Maryland who represents, it might have been
20:37
the Solicitor General or the Attorney General
20:38
from Maryland. It was one of the two. His argument
20:42
was basically that if you only allowed this for
20:45
the circuit, it would make citizenship and IDing
20:50
and get, you know, having people registered incredibly
20:54
hard. And he basically said, look, the nationwide
20:56
injunction system isn't good. And this has plagued
21:00
many administrations as nationwide injunctions.
21:02
He said, that's not good. But in this case, it's
21:04
needed because, you know, as you see, it would
21:08
create a logistical hellscape for the U .S. government.
21:12
Yeah, for sure. And so, okay, one of the like
21:15
main issues is, you know, obviously, as Ryan
21:19
said, can one single lower court kind of halt
21:23
federal policy nationwide? Like that's kind of
21:26
the main thing that's being questioned here.
21:28
But a couple other things is, is birthright citizenship
21:32
protected under the 14th Amendment? Because this
21:34
executive order is kind of counteracting the
21:38
whole idea that if you are born on U .S. soil,
21:41
you are legally a U .S. citizen, they're trying
21:45
to kind of say you are, but like only if you're
21:49
born to a certain group of people after or before
21:52
a certain period of time. And then another question
21:55
is, should executive orders with sweeping immigration
21:57
implications be allowed to go into effect while
22:00
legal battles are pending? And so obviously this
22:03
court case, like the ruling of it, will affect
22:06
a lot of things in the future. especially with
22:09
what not only lower courts can do, but what executive
22:14
orders are able to do as well. Of course. And
22:18
I mean, lower courts, they possess power over
22:23
the circuit inherently. But for this case, there
22:27
were some judges who did want to just talk about
22:29
the case on its merits of the birthright citizenship,
22:34
but the case is actually about... the lower courts
22:37
and district court judges. And, you know, well,
22:43
the argument made by Mr. Solicitor General was
22:47
very, and I actually, I was quite on board, so
22:52
I listened to a bit of it on C -SPAN. It was
22:56
quite interesting. He has a horrible voice. I'm
22:58
not sure what it is with the Trump administration.
22:59
RFK in the Solicitor General, I forgot his name.
23:02
I think RFK has a medical condition. Yes, I think
23:05
they both do. They're incredibly raspy, but I
23:08
digress. Nationwide injunctions, I personally
23:12
think from district court, shouldn't be allowed
23:14
and are unbecoming of the justice system inherently
23:20
because it's justice and you can't have a district
23:25
court judge ruling on behalf of a nation. But
23:28
I do think for this case specifically, I think
23:30
it's quite interesting because Much more importantly
23:33
is this question, is citizenship just a transferable
23:39
thing? Does it only apply somewhere? Obviously,
23:42
that's not viable. You can't have people who
23:44
are citizens as part of the country. It's the
23:47
United States, not a fractured United States.
23:52
And the rights apply through all of the United
23:56
States, the ones you were given as a citizen.
24:02
Look, I think if I were to rule in this case,
24:05
I think I would personally say that nationwide
24:08
injunctions are illegal, but there are other
24:11
class action kind of things that you can take
24:14
with this, especially if you get a case. Personally,
24:19
I think the best solution to this is just for
24:20
the... for SCOTUS to rule on the merits of the
24:25
case. I think that's a solution, but I think
24:27
nationwide injunctions, personally, I just don't
24:29
think they're viable. And they've plagued, as
24:31
the Solicitor General said, five administrations
24:34
before this, at least, if not more, in just them
24:38
and their policy decisions, whether it is Democrat,
24:40
Republican, or anybody else. Yeah, I think I
24:44
actually do agree with you, and I know we were
24:46
going to try and do a little back -and -forth
24:48
situation here. But, I mean, with... This case
24:52
isn't about the executive order. It's about if
24:55
the courts have the right to stop federal jurisdiction,
25:00
pretty much, or whatever. And, I mean, it's the
25:04
whole thing that your state law doesn't trump
25:06
federal law. I mean, that's true. Yeah, that's
25:12
what I'm saying. It's like a similar situation
25:14
where you're like the federal court, the federal,
25:18
like... law also shouldn't be able to be like
25:20
stopped by a single small yeah do you i don't
25:26
know i mean yeah small the premise is a small
25:31
district court running in a single circuit shouldn't
25:33
preside over all no i got that part circuits
25:36
yeah yes i'm agreeing with you no of course it
25:39
it obviously when you look at it from a law perspective
25:43
you have supremacy clause and all that and the
25:46
non -domineering clause of this constitution
25:48
that has all the uh that deals of course with
25:51
um when it comes to uh laws federal laws and
25:56
state laws and how they are to be applied and
25:58
how they are to be stacked on top of each other
26:00
um but obviously federal laws supreme to vote
26:05
uh to stay anything from the state um And I think
26:10
the legal opinion on that, too, is quite similar,
26:13
as you said. But do you have anything else you
26:17
want to say on CASA at all? No, I'm lost. I don't
26:23
know what's happening anymore. Yeah, it's quite
26:25
complicated. I barely understood what the Solicitor
26:29
General was saying. This is going to be probably
26:32
a pretty quick one. Michael Waltz, the National
26:36
Security Advisor, you may remember him from the
26:39
leak on Signal from accidentally adding a journalist's
26:44
phone number. So this was quite interesting.
26:49
I was in school. I remember where I was. I was
26:51
in biology class, and I got a notification on
26:53
my Apple Watch. Michael Waltz is looking to be
26:56
fired. This was from Axios. So immediately I
26:58
hopped on Polymarket. And I was looking at the
27:01
odds. And he spiked up as being the first one
27:04
to be fired. And then later in the day, he dropped.
27:07
And he was actually reassigned, is what we now
27:09
know, to be the embassy, sorry, the ambassador
27:15
to the United Nations after the, what's it called?
27:20
The nomination was pulled for Elise Stefanik
27:23
because they need the congressional majority
27:24
to pass, as we said earlier, the big, beautiful
27:27
bill. So they pulled her nomination just so that
27:31
they could have that majority. Mike Johnson needed
27:33
it, and he – and Trump understood. So he now
27:38
has Michael Waltz running as UN ambassador or
27:41
will be nominated. But more importantly, Rubio
27:46
is now on double duty for the foreseeable future
27:49
as both secretary of state and the national security
27:52
advisor for Donald Trump. So, look, I think –
27:58
It's quite an interesting almost situation that
28:06
Rubio and Trump have themselves in where Rubio
28:09
has to work. Obviously, he's seeing much of the
28:11
same intelligence, but I think it's important
28:15
that they fill this job quickly so Rubio doesn't
28:19
have to keep serving double duty when it comes
28:23
to national security positions because he's already
28:25
serving as Secretary of State. you know, half
28:28
a national security position, half a foreign
28:30
policy. Okay, one of the final things we're going
28:41
to talk about today, or I guess the second to
28:43
final thing, the penultimate, if Mr. C is still
28:47
here, is the State Department stripped Harvard
28:50
of accepting international students. Harvard
28:55
is kind of known for having students from both
28:59
other countries as well as intelligent American
29:03
citizens and students. This was stopped by a
29:08
district court, which kind of ties into what
29:10
we were talking about just 10 minutes ago, not
29:14
even. No, just then. Yeah, okay. Yeah. And so...
29:21
Well, the officials that did this pretty much
29:23
cited concern over the university's handling
29:26
of foreign student misconduct and alleged promotion
29:29
of anti -American ideals. Because, you know,
29:34
the top universities have had a lot of issues
29:38
recently with... Anti -Semitism. Yes, with anti
29:44
-Semitism and being the kind of host site of...
29:50
pro -Palestine rallies and whatnot. And so they're
29:56
trying to kind of threat, I guess, the whole
30:01
school and tell them that they kind of need to
30:04
be a little more harsh and cut down on some of
30:07
this. Yeah. And this very much ties into the
30:11
Kayser -Casa et al. case. Because this is quite
30:16
interesting. This is a federal policy. But it
30:20
only applies to one college, so it's at a circuit
30:23
level because Harvard's obviously within one
30:25
circuit. It's not in between two. That's just
30:29
obvious. It's in the circuit. A judge within
30:33
the circuit ruled, does it apply to Harvard or
30:36
is it a federal? It gets to be very complicated.
30:40
There's going to be a lot of lawyering and a
30:42
lot of fighting over this kind of thing. I think
30:46
it's quite interesting from a legal perspective.
30:49
It's an emergency injunction, so no official
30:51
ruling or anything. Harvard actually filed a
30:55
lawsuit challenging this, basically saying that
30:59
it violates First Amendment rights. Yeah, I think
31:03
that was the one that got the emergency injunction.
31:06
I'm pretty sure. I might be wrong. How is this
31:09
violating First Amendment rights? Because Trump
31:12
officials cited the fact that foreign students
31:15
were coming into the country and obviously engaging
31:18
in this kind of banter. But look, I think it
31:24
may be a stretch. It may not be to say that people
31:28
who, like, look, if you're suspending preemptively
31:32
people's visas, there's no real First Amendment
31:34
right there. If you're deporting people because
31:35
of their speech, the State Department is revoking
31:38
their visa. That's a different question, but
31:40
if you're preemptively saying no to – it depends
31:43
if you classify every single person. It gets
31:46
to be complicated because do you think every
31:47
single person of those people is going to say
31:51
what the Trump administration is kind of going
31:52
against, this anti -Semitism? Obviously not.
31:56
It gets to be complicated, especially when it's
31:59
preemptive to issuing any more visas for Harvard.
32:03
Yeah, it actually has been super interesting
32:05
with a lot of college graduations being recently.
32:08
There have been a couple different instances.
32:10
So I know NYU. I saw Columbia. And I was getting
32:14
there next. Oh, perfect. Okay, sorry. Way to
32:16
jump the gun. Perfect. An NYU student who was
32:20
chosen to speak at graduation used his time to...
32:25
express his pro -palestine viewpoint and they
32:28
are he's a he's a trans um student as well so
32:32
people are kind of you know they're suspending
32:35
his um or withholding his degree his diploma
32:38
and people are kind of tying it into not only
32:41
his political beliefs but also his um gender
32:46
identity and all of that um that was i believe
32:49
earlier this month and then as ryan had mentioned
32:52
at columbia while the president was speaking
32:55
um there was lots of you know booing lots of
32:59
um heckling the president of columbia yes and
33:03
she basically was like i'm open to conversations
33:06
and reform which i'm getting right now which
33:09
you know great reading yeah i i think the The
33:14
consultants for their media thing did a bad job.
33:17
It was quite bad to watch. Yeah. Look, I think
33:23
it's an ongoing thing. We'll talk about it as
33:25
the episodes go on. This is going to be a legal
33:26
fight for the upcoming while, to say the least.
33:32
So, you know, it's going to evolve. Ryan, do
33:34
you think this will play into other universities
33:38
and colleges? Look, if they get the authority
33:42
to block... Harvard, they get the authority to
33:45
block everyone. And they'll take it out on whoever
33:48
they see fit and whoever they need to. If their
33:52
anti -Semitism task force doesn't deem them to
33:56
be doing enough to root out anti -Semitism on
34:00
their campuses. So look, if somehow in a timely
34:05
manner, this is all resolved in a way that benefits
34:08
the Trump administration's current... domestic
34:11
and kind of foreign policy towards the matter,
34:14
look, I think it could easily pervade to other
34:17
colleges. Lastly, something that I kind of want
34:22
to talk about specifically is, so we haven't
34:26
talked much about them because obviously we focus
34:28
more on domestic issues, but the Canadian elections
34:31
just happened. The Liberal Party won. And just
34:34
to give a quick summary, basically a few months
34:36
ago, there was a guy named Justin Trudeau. He's
34:38
been the prime minister for God knows how long.
34:41
most of my life, at least. His father was also
34:44
a prime minister and he was immensely unpopular,
34:49
like more unpopular than like Joe Biden at his
34:52
worst. Kamala Harris, before she became the presidential
34:56
nominee, she was underwater by 18 points. He
34:58
was more. The liberal party had no chance of
35:01
winning. People actually like, this was like
35:02
a settled fact. Like if you went on the, there's
35:05
something called 338 Canada, which is a election
35:08
prediction website, similar to 538. by the way,
35:11
which has now been dissolved. It's ran by a physicist.
35:15
It's quite interesting. The chances were like
35:17
0%. But anyways, he resigned. This man named
35:20
Mark Carney, a former central banker, so he was
35:23
the one who controlled the financial policy,
35:27
took the reins of Canada. And the main thing
35:32
was the economy and tariffs that were the problem.
35:35
And this is where it gets interesting. Both are
35:37
liberal governments. Both just had their leader
35:39
basically resign. Both have an upcoming election
35:43
that they have almost zero time to prepare for.
35:45
And I think it's quite interesting how they handle
35:48
it differently. Because I think we all remember
35:50
the time when Kamala Harris went on the Today
35:52
Show and said, I will not do anything different
35:54
than Joe Biden. And what Carney did, and Carney
35:57
was interviewed about this at the debate, there's
35:58
both an English and French debate, and he said
36:00
the same thing in both languages. He said, look.
36:04
I believe the same things that Justin Trudeau
36:06
believes. I have the same ideals when it comes
36:09
to issues both social and financial. But I think
36:16
that we need to disregard these social issues.
36:17
I think we focus way too much on them. Ken is
36:19
obviously quite left when it comes to social
36:23
issues and social policy. And he said, I think
36:27
we need to disregard it. And he said, I think
36:30
we need to focus purely on financial system.
36:33
This is, you know, he started rising. Obviously,
36:36
he had been, that party had been ascending because
36:39
of Trump. But something else very interesting
36:43
happened. The moment Mark Carney was in office,
36:45
because he was in office before he was elected,
36:47
you know, he revoked the carbon tax, which was
36:51
this big thing. It was basically, you know, the
36:54
conservatives today, they're all arguing about
36:55
these big things. It was almost if they re -inked
37:00
the carpet out under the conservatives. I think
37:02
that's a difference between the two. Both elections
37:05
were almost identical. Obviously, Canadian elections
37:07
are a bit shorter, but that's what I would take
37:10
from it. You need to separate yourself. And he
37:11
did well. He said, I believe the same things,
37:13
but that's not what I'm focused on. I'm focused
37:15
on the economy. And Harris just didn't do that.
37:17
And that's where I see it. Yeah, I think that's
37:21
a really good example of how you can properly
37:23
switch candidates and still, you know, not sacrifice
37:27
your party as a whole. Yeah, of course. So with
37:32
that, I think we'll take it to Luchana's segment.
37:34
We're going to send you over to Luchana. I'm
37:36
not sure, where is she right now? She's in Ohio.
37:39
She's in Columbus with, I believe, her grandparents.
37:42
Okay, we'll send you over to the former Senate
37:45
of the Vice President, J .D. Vance. All right.
37:56
Hi, everyone. Welcome back to Project 2028. I
38:00
assume that Elle and Ryan gave you a brief overview
38:03
of what's happening this week, but I was not
38:08
able to join them. I'm out of town, but obviously
38:12
I wanted to record and add in. So I have a little
38:15
segment about an issue that's going on that I
38:19
thought was really important to talk about, just
38:21
because I think it's a really interesting issue.
38:25
I don't know if it's gotten a ton of... attention
38:27
in the media, and I think it's just really neat
38:32
to draw attention to. So without further ado,
38:36
let's dive right in. So what I'm going to be
38:41
talking about is Adriana Smith, a woman, a 30
38:44
-year -old woman who lived in Georgia. She was
38:47
a nurse. She was a mother to a five -year -old
38:50
boy, and she is declared brain dead. um she's
38:56
not going to come back she's on life support
38:58
because she's pregnant she was nine weeks pregnant
39:01
at the time that she became brain dead um and
39:06
Georgia isn't they wouldn't let her family choose
39:09
whether or not to remove her life support because
39:12
um they said that that would end up killing the
39:16
fetus and Georgia has very strict abortion laws
39:20
some of the strictest in the country so they
39:23
were not allowing that and they weren't allowing
39:25
her family to have a choice so that was just
39:28
a little overview now we're going to get started
39:30
with our timeline so Adriana Smith February 2025
39:35
was nine weeks pregnant um she has some really
39:39
bad headaches and she goes to the hospital to
39:43
um kind of figure out what's going on they gave
39:46
her some medicine they sent her home um she's
39:50
found unresponsive the next morning by her boyfriend
39:54
the father of her kids um so she's transferred
39:57
to emory university hospital and the doctors
40:00
find out that she has multiple blood clots in
40:03
her brain and is declared brain dead so she's
40:08
legally dead like this isn't going to be one
40:11
of the miracle situations where she comes back
40:13
she's gone and she's kept on life support so
40:19
that her pregnancy can continue. This is due
40:24
to something called the LIFE Act in Georgia,
40:27
which I'm going to talk a little bit about. So
40:30
the LIFE Act stands for Living Infants Fairness
40:33
and Equality Act. It was enacted in 2019, and
40:37
it prohibits abortions after the detection of
40:40
fetal cardiac activity, so a fetal heartbeat,
40:43
which happens around six weeks. Just for my personal
40:49
opinion, we'll discuss this in a later episode,
40:52
but we're going to start adding in a few more
40:54
segments where we discuss our opinions, just
40:57
to vary things up a little, give a variety of
41:01
episodes. But in my opinion... six weeks is so
41:06
so early for a ban because um most people haven't
41:10
realized they're pregnant they haven't really
41:12
had a chance to do anything about it so it feels
41:15
really early but that's not the point of this
41:17
episode um but so no abortions after six weeks
41:24
and this law basically grants personhood status
41:28
to a fetus so it has the same legal rights as
41:33
a living human being, basically. So Emory University
41:39
Hospital, where Adriana was staying, decided
41:42
that the LIFE Act required them to keep Adriana
41:46
on life support so that the fetus would develop
41:48
because taking her off according to this act,
41:52
they believe that taking her off according to
41:55
this act would be the same as taking a person
41:58
who didn't want to be taken off the ventilator
42:00
off. almost, like, conjoined twins, if that makes
42:03
sense. Um, like, you can't, like, take one person
42:07
off without taking the other off. I'm not sure
42:09
if that makes sense, but I'm doing my best. It's
42:12
a complicated topic. So, um, one of the things
42:17
that I think is the most interesting about this
42:20
is how little, say, Adriana's family had. So
42:24
the, um, mother is april newkirk um adriana's
42:29
mother and she has said you know i'm not sure
42:34
we would have taken her off life support i'm
42:36
i'm not saying we don't want the baby But I'm
42:39
saying that we should have a choice. And I think
42:42
that the main thing she said she was upset about
42:45
was that this is her daughter. This is her daughter
42:47
that she lost. She has a grandson who lost a
42:51
mom. She's going to have the responsibility of
42:54
now a possibly medically complex, which we'll
42:58
get to in a minute, child that she didn't get
43:02
to have a say in. that's kind of her main thing
43:06
that like these are all decisions that are affecting
43:09
her life and she didn't really get a choice and
43:12
obviously like just in my opinion I think this
43:17
would take quite an emotional toll on the family
43:18
to be like you can't really process or get closure
43:22
on the death or have a funeral you just have
43:24
to wait and also be anticipating any possible
43:29
damage that could be done when this baby is born.
43:33
So I think that one of the things that was most
43:37
interesting to me is just that the family has
43:39
no say in what happens to this woman's body.
43:43
So as of the date of recording, the fetus is
43:49
approximately 22 weeks. to um 22 weeks gestation
43:54
um there's a lot of medical concerns around this
43:57
baby um its name is chance um that's what the
44:01
family has said you know the fetus is gonna be
44:04
named chance whether or not he makes it that's
44:06
like the name they've chosen to refer to him
44:08
as um and there's just a lot of medical concerns
44:12
like disabilities the baby might not be able
44:14
to walk it might be blind there's also a big
44:16
one a big risk of fluid on the brain But he's
44:21
going to be delivered by C -section early August.
44:24
I do think that there's a very significant chance
44:27
that he will not be born healthy or even living.
44:31
But we have a couple thoughts from medical experts
44:37
and bioethicists. So Dr. Vincenzo Borghella.
44:42
I'm hoping I pronounced that right, says that,
44:45
you know, like this is a really rare and complicated
44:48
situation to like have a pregnancy, to like sustain
44:55
a pregnancy in a brain dead woman, especially
44:57
someone who was declared brain dead really early
45:00
into the pregnancy. So it wasn't like, oh my
45:03
God, the baby's 32 weeks. Let's just make it
45:07
to 33. It's really early, which I just don't
45:10
think has happened a lot before. Another thought
45:15
was from Thaddeus Pope, who is a bioethicist,
45:18
and he actually says that, you know, taking life
45:21
support off of a brain -dead patient actually
45:23
doesn't constitute an abortion under Georgia
45:27
law, so technically it could happen, which I
45:30
also think is an interesting perspective. Then
45:34
from the more political pro -life, pro -choice
45:37
side, a lot of the pro -life advocates are obviously
45:41
supporting the hospital's decision, emphasizing
45:43
the value of fetal life. There was a senator
45:46
that said, like, you know, this is completely
45:48
appropriate action. Like, we want to do whatever
45:51
we can to save the life of a child, which, like,
45:54
obviously, this is kind of what we're expecting.
45:57
The responses pretty much fall along. their belief
46:01
lines on all other topics but all other like
46:05
abortion related topics you know it's not like
46:07
a ton of pro -life advocates are like changing
46:09
their opinions on this or a bunch of pro -choice
46:12
advocates are like well this seems great you
46:14
know um but pro -choice advocates obviously say
46:18
this is horrible because it overrides the family's
46:21
wishes and the woman's autonomy Another state
46:25
senator from Georgia, both the senators I've
46:27
mentioned are from Georgia, calls the situation
46:29
a grotesque distortion of medical ethics and
46:32
human decency. There have been a lot of public
46:35
protests, rallies, and demonstrations about this,
46:39
mainly from people that think that what's happening
46:41
to her isn't fair. And I think the important
46:44
thing that I want to make sure I note is when
46:46
people are like, oh, this isn't fair, it's not
46:48
like they're saying like... oh my god I can't
46:50
believe she's on um life support so she can carry
46:54
out this pregnancy is more I can't believe that
46:57
she didn't have a choice in whether or not she
46:59
wanted to carry out this pregnancy um but there
47:04
have been there's just been a ton of media coverage
47:07
on this um and there's it kind of brings up a
47:11
couple future issues or broader implications
47:14
like the legal ambiguities. So it kind of like
47:18
brings attention to a need for clear guidelines
47:21
regarding the application of abortion laws in
47:24
medically complex situations. And it just more
47:30
like raises questions about bodily autonomy,
47:32
the definition of death, rights of the deceased
47:34
versus the unborn, stuff like that. Obviously,
47:40
I think there could be some laws that come out
47:45
in the near future to revisit and clarify like
47:48
abortion laws. So now that we've basically gotten
47:53
the facts down and like different sides opinions,
47:56
more objective stuff, I'm going to talk a little
47:59
bit about what I think. about this um so one
48:03
of the main things that I've kind of been thinking
48:06
is that if there's a person who's brain dead
48:08
let's say same thing as Adriana blood clot brain
48:11
dead and the family's like let's just keep them
48:13
on life support for a little bit just to see
48:16
um you a hospital wouldn't be able to say okay
48:21
and we're actually not going to ask you about
48:23
this but we're going to take this person's organs.
48:26
Because guess how many other lives it's going
48:28
to save? Even though the person harvesting or
48:33
taking the organs from a brain -dead person who's
48:35
not going to come back could save the lives of
48:38
so many other people that could have a life,
48:40
you can't do it because the right to bodily autonomy
48:45
kind of outweighs that. So I think that this
48:48
is a really interesting situation that it's like...
48:52
This just would never be allowed. It would be
48:53
like organ harvesting if you were taking someone's
48:56
organs without their consent, their family's
48:58
consent, or them writing down, like, I'm an organ
49:01
donor. That just wouldn't happen. So I think
49:04
it's really interesting that it can happen to
49:09
a pregnant woman, and especially just without
49:12
the family's consent. And I also think that this,
49:15
it just feels so... It feels like they're treating
49:19
this woman as an incubator to me because they're
49:22
just not allowing her to, like, die with dignity
49:24
or, like, not that she's not dying with dignity,
49:27
but, like, her family can't have a say in that
49:30
or, like, her medical wishes. So, yeah, those
49:34
are just a couple of my thoughts. I think this
49:37
is kind of a quick segment, but this is something
49:39
I really wanted to talk about. I was very interested
49:42
in it. I actually, like, saw it. I think of myself
49:46
as someone who reads the news pretty regularly,
49:49
is pretty up -to -date with things, and I honestly
49:52
first saw this on Instagram, and I was honestly
49:56
like, is this clickbait? Is this real? So I thought
49:59
it would be really neat to do a segment about
50:03
it and bring more attention and awareness to
50:07
it, especially just because it's kind of an issue
50:10
that has not really happened before. I think
50:14
it's going to be interesting to see how this
50:16
shapes the future. That's always one of the things
50:19
I think about when there's these big controversial
50:21
issues like what ripple effect changes is this
50:25
going to have? Is it going to make laws? like
50:28
clearer like hey no brain dead um people don't
50:31
have to go through pregnancies or is it going
50:33
to make them stricter even um or is it gonna
50:37
have more like public outcry make it to a national
50:41
like stage so that's always one thing I think
50:44
about just because I don't know I like thinking
50:48
about like the impacts that these decisions will
50:51
have but yeah thank you so much for listening
50:54
to um me talk and I hope everyone has a lovely
50:59
day thank you so much I think we'll send it to
51:03
the outro bye or topics you would like us to
51:13
discuss, please email us at project2028 .podcast.
51:17
We really appreciate it. If you want to follow
51:19
us on socials, we're on Instagram at project2028
51:22
.podcast. If you like this episode, please, please
51:26
listen to one of our other ones. It would mean
51:28
a great deal. And leave us a rating that you
51:30
believe is fit. Thank you so much for listening,
51:33
and I hope you have a great day.