(0:25) Intro
(1:46) President Biden Addresses the Nation re: MAGA Extremists
(5:23) New York's Gun Laws and a Gun-Free Times Square
(21:46) Kansas Teacher Settles Lawsuit with School District Over Gender Pronouns
(35:52) United States Approves Potential $1.1B Weapons Sale to Taiwan
(39:04) White House Asks Congress for $47.1B for Ukraine, COVID, Monkeypox, and Natural Disaster Relief
Links to sources can be found on www.jordanismylawyer.com.
(0:25) Intro
(1:46) President Biden Addresses the Nation re: MAGA Extremists
(5:23) New York's Gun Laws and a Gun-Free Times Square
(21:46) Kansas Teacher Settles Lawsuit with School District Over Gender Pronouns
(35:52) United States Approves Potential $1.1B Weapons Sale to Taiwan
(39:04) White House Asks Congress for $47.1B for Ukraine, COVID, Monkeypox, and Natural Disaster Relief
Links to sources can be found on www.jordanismylawyer.com.
Alright, welcome back to another episode of the Jordan Is My Lawyer Podcast. It’s Monday so you know what that means. We’re breaking down the news stories you need to know from the past week in an unbiased, fact-based manner so you can form your own opinions without any outside noise. Today we’re covering five stories. You guys know, it varies by the week – sometimes it’s three, sometimes it’s four, sometimes it’s five – today it happens to be five. So, we’ll start with a recap of President Biden’s Thursday night address, we’ll then talk about New York’s new gun laws and why Times Square is now a gun-free zone, we’ll get into a settlement in Kansas that stemmed from gender pronouns and left a retired teacher $95,000 richer, we’ll talk about the potential $1.1B arms sale to Taiwan that has China feeling pretty unhappy with the US at the moment, and we’ll wrap up the episode talking about the White House’s recent ask to Congress totaling $47.1B dollars. So, definitely a lot to cover today. The last two stories are shorter than the rest, but without further ado, let’s get into President Biden’s speech.
President Biden took the stage on Thursday, September 1st to address the nation. He did so with Independence Hall lit up in red lights and two marines standing behind him. He opened his speech by saying that “this nation’s quality and democracy are under assault.” He made his speech from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for a reason. He wanted to go back to the place where the nation began to tell the nation that there is absolutely no room for political violence in America and that we must defend our democracy. But if you missed the 25 minute speech, I’ll recap it for you in a few bullet points. Basically, he said:
· Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent a form of extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic. But, he says, not every republican, not even the majority of republicans, are MAGA republicans. So, he was sure not to call out Republicans as a whole but just those extremists.
· MAGA republicans do not respect the constitution and are determined to take America backwards to a place where there is no right to choose, no right to marry who you love, and no right to contraception.
· He discussed January 6th and the election fraud debacle and said MAGA Republicans are a continued threat.
· Together, we can choose a better path to the future. American democracy is not guaranteed, we have to stand up for it and defend it regardless of ideology.
Now, look, most Americans can agree that the main message was great. That message being we all must work together regardless of ideology. That’s what I always preach to you guys. But here’s the thing, as the President, he should have pointed out that the extremists are on both sides. Both sides. Not just the republican side. And not just the democrat side. You know, when I was listening to his speech, a few statements stood out to me where I was like you know what – this is a perfect opportunity to talk about the right and the left, the republicans and the democrats, the conservatives and the liberals.
At one point he said, “You can’t love your country only when you win.” And that’s true. That’s totally 100% true. But you have to tell that to both sides. Because when President Trump won, you had people who didn’t vote for him saying “not my President” and people wanting to leave the country. That statement should be told to the American people as a whole.
And the second statement that stood out to be was: “American democracy only works if we choose to respect the rule of law and the institutions that were set up in the hall behind me. Only if we respect the legitimate political differences.” But the truth is, the respect is lacking on both sides. And this was another perfect opportunity to address the nation as a whole, and not just the extreme republicans.
So that’s what I have to say on that that. As always, I’m curious to hear your thoughts on this – I don’t judge one way or the other, I just want us to be able to hear each other’s perspectives and have substantive discussion. You can always comment on these topics on my website jordanismylawyer.com on each episode’s description page. So, with that, let’s move on to the new gun laws in New York.
The next time you’re walking around Times Square you may see some new signs that you haven’t seen before. They read “Gun Free Zone”. This is because, as of Thursday, September 1st, a new New York law established certain “sensitive” places that guns will not be allowed – even with a lawful concealed carry permit. The new law comes after the June 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (otherwise known as NYSRPA v Bruen, but you’ll hear me refer to it just as Bruen), which said a provision of New York’s Penal Law regarding carrying a firearm violated the fourteenth amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. And we’re going to go through that holding and kind of break it down.
So, let’s start from Bruen and then we’ll make our way to the revised New York law and how it was revised to conform with the Supreme Court’s ruling and we’ll go over the various locations where guns aren’t allowed. Bruen stemmed from two New York residents, Brandon Koch and Robert Nash, who both applied for unrestricted licenses to carry a handgun in public based on their interest in self-defense. This was years ago by the way – 2014/2015. The state of NY denied both of their applications because they failed to establish “proper cause” as the law requires. In other words, the state said they had failed to demonstrate a unique need for the license. So, in order to get a license, for purposes of self-defense, and carry a gun in public, according to New York law, you had to show a unique need. It wasn’t enough that you wanted to protect yourself. The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association then sued the state officials on behalf of the two men that were denied licenses alleging that the state officials violated their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The District Court dismissed the lawsuit based on prior state precedent which had upheld New York’s proper-cause standard. The NY Court of Appeals affirmed the decision to dismiss the lawsuit. And then the case landed in front of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court decision was a 6-3 decision, and the majority opinion was written by the controversial Justice Thomas. And here’s what you need to know. So, in 43 states, the government issues licenses to carry based on objective criteria. But, in six states, including New York, the government further conditions issuance of a license on the showing of some additional special need. And the Supreme Court says this is unconstitutional – it’s unconstitutional to require an applicant to demonstrate a special need for self-defense.
According to the New York law (at the time the Supreme Court heard the case), a license applicant who wanted to possess a firearm at home or in his place of business must show that he is of good moral character, has no history of crime or mental illness, and that "no good cause exists for the denial of the license.” On the other hand, if the applicant wants to carry a firearm outside his home or place of business for self-defense, the applicant must obtain an “unrestricted license.” To get an unrestricted license, the applicant must show that “proper cause” existed. If the applicant can’t show proper cause, he could only get a “restricted” license for public carry, which allows carrying for a limited purpose like hunting, employment, or target shooting – but not self-defense. But here’s the issue. The law didn’t define proper cause. Instead, there was state precedent from other cases that had held things like “an applicant shows proper cause only if he can demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.” But again, proper cause wasn’t defined by law. So, it was determined on a case by case basis. For example, one case found that living or working in an area noted for criminal activity isn’t sufficient for proper cause. Instead, New York courts generally require evidence of particular threats, attacks, or other extraordinary danger to personal safety. So, it wasn’t enough that you live in a dangerous neighborhood. There had to be evidence of particular threats, attacks or other extraordinary danger. So, in ruling that this “proper cause” requirement violated the constitution, the Supreme Court relied on two prior Supreme Court cases – District of Columbia vs Heller and McDonald v Chicago. In those cases, the Supreme Court held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Specifically, the Supreme Court said that under Heller, when the plain text of the Second Amendment covers an individual’s conduct, the constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and that a state government cannot interfere with that constitutional protection by simply saying regulation of that right promotes government interest. Instead, a state government has to show that their regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
In the court’s opinion, it talks about applying historical traditions to modern day situations and the analogical reasoning that requires. And the court says, “to be clear, analogical reasoning under the second amendment is neither a regulatory straightjacket nor a regulatory blank check. On the one hand, courts should not uphold every modern law that remotely resembles a historical analogue because doing so risks endorsing outliers that our ancestors would have never accepted. On the other hand, analogical reasoning requires only that the government identify a well-established and representative historical analogue, not a historical twin.” And the court goes on to say, “Consider, for example, Heller’s discussion of longstanding laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings. Although the historical record yields relatively few 18th and 19th century “sensitive places” where weapons were altogether prohibited – we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions. We therefore can assume it settled that these locations were “sensitive places” where arms carrying could be prohibited consistent with the Second Amendment. And courts can use these analogies to determine modern regulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new sensitive places.”
New York sets forth the argument that these “sensitive places” includes all places where people typically congregate and where law-enforcement and other public-safety professionals are presumptively available. And the Court says, well, yes, it is true that people sometimes congregate in sensitive places, and that law enforcement professionals are usually available in sensitive places, but you can’t expand the category of sensitive places simply to all places of public congregation. The Court says that doing this would in effect exempt cities, like Manhattan, from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to carry arms for self-defense in cities like Manhattan. So, basically, the court is saying, this nation’s tradition is important, and we realize that things change over time, and we have to adapt, but we have to adapt in a way that our predecessors would have wanted us to adapt.
So, when this case was all said and done, New York’s proper cause requirement was said to violate that Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. But one of the things that New York took away from this case was that it could identify “sensitive places” and restrict gun carrying in those places. Historically, these sensitive places consisted of government buildings, court houses, legislative sessions, but now, New York has added a few to the list in an effort to abide by the Supreme Court’s ruling but still maintain gun control.
Specifically, gunsafety.ny.gov, a new gun safety website created by the state of New York, reads, “On July 1, 2022, Governor Kathy Hochul signed landmark legislation to strengthen New York State’s gun laws to ensure they align with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen. Drafted in close collaboration with the Legislature, the legislation amended NYS Penal Law by adding a comprehensive list of what the new law defines as “sensitive locations” where the possession of firearms, rifles, or shotguns is prohibited. The new law also makes it a Class E felony to possess a firearm, rifle, or shotgun in those sensitive locations.” Per usual, you can find this link on my website on this episode’s web page, and you can see the list of sensitive locations for yourself. There are roughly 20 categories of sensitive locations which include places like government buildings, locations providing health services, places of worship, libraries, playgrounds, parks, schools, etc. And then the last subsection specifically names Times Square. The revision also exempts certain people like police officers (and even retired police officers), military personnel, certain security guards, government employees, etc. So, they can carry guns in these sensitive locations, but the average citizen cannot.
Now, the punishment for carrying a weapon in one of these areas is a Class E Felony, which is actually New York’s lowest felony charge, and the sentence can be anywhere from 2-5 years in jail depending on the circumstances – if jail time is even given.
In addition to creating sensitive places, the law also set forth new application requirements for a concealed carry permit since the proper cause standard had to go as per the Supreme Court. So, now, applicants have to complete 16 hours of classroom training and two hours of live-fire exercises. Applicants also have to provide a list of social media accounts for the past three years as part of a “character and conduct” review. Monroe County Sheriff Todd Baxter said it currently takes 2-4 hours to perform a pistol permit background check on a clean candidate, but the new law adds another 1-3 hours for each permit. The county has about 600 pending pistol permits so the Sheriff says the new law is going to slow everything down.
Obviously, there are people that are happy about the new laws, and then there are people not so happy. There are a couple of things that I thought about as I was researching that I want to get your guys’ thoughts on them. First, do you think classifying certain places as “sensitive” could pose a risk to the public? You know, you always hear people saying gun control won’t control the criminals. The criminals will always find a way. So, if the bad guys know that certain places are gun-free zones, are they more likely to target those places when it comes to shootings and violence? Especially a place like Times Square, right?. Do the bad guys know they have more of an opportunity in a place like Times Square knowing the ordinary citizen won’t have a gun on them to protect themselves? And, ok Times Square you have police, you have law enforcement, you have security, so maybe take Central Park instead. Historically, places like government buildings and airports are obviously known to be gun-free areas, but at least in those places you have security, you know. Everyone has to walk through a metal detector upon entry. But places like Central Park, or even Times Square, it’s just kind of free reign. Do you feel that could be a dangerous implication of these laws?
And then the other thing I thought about was regarding this social media background check. I mean, the facts and statistics show that a portion of shooters in the United States had posted on their social media accounts about gun violence prior to carrying out a shooting. So, yeah, it may add more time to the processing time of applications, or it might slow things down for state officials, but is that a downside we (as a country) should be willing to deal with?
So, those are just a couple of things that ran across my mind that I wanted to get your guys’ thoughts on so make sure you leave a comment on my website so we can all discuss this. And as always, you guys can find my sources for this story and my other stories on my website on this episode’s description page. So, let’s now move on to the Kansas school teacher that settled a lawsuit against her school district for $95,000 over gender pronouns.
A retired Kansas school teacher settles a $95,000 lawsuit over use of students’ preferred pronouns. On Thursday, September 1, the Greary County School District settled a lawsuit with retired Kansas school teacher, Pamela Ricard. The lawsuit started when Ricard, a math teacher at Fort Riley Middle School, refused to use two students’ preferred names and pronouns. The first incident occurred in March 2021, and in response, the principal sent an email to all teachers at the school that read, “When we have a student that requests to go by a preferred name that is different than their given name, our district honors the request. Once you are aware of a preferred name, use that name for the student.”
After that, Ricard was allegedly told multiple times to use the students’ preferred name and pronouns but refused to do so. Then, in April 2021, Ricard received a three-day suspension (with pay) for her violations. Following this suspension, the school sent out a document titled “Use of Preferred Names and Pronouns”. The document asked staff members to share the student’s request with administrators or counselors and respect the student’s chosen pronouns. Then, in September 2021, the school board adopted an addition to the district’s Diversity and Inclusion Policy saying that teachers and staff were to use a student’s preferred pronouns when speaking to the student and use the student’s legal name when speaking to the students’ parents.
According to the court record, Ricard is a Christian who believes God creates each person as male and female, that these two distinct, complementary sexes reflect the image of God, and rejection of one’s biological sex is a rejection of the image of God within that person. She believes that there are only two anatomical sexes except in very rare scientifically demonstrable medical circumstances. Ricard believes that referring to children with pronouns inconsistent with biological sex is harmful because it is untrue. She also believes that the Bible prohibits dishonesty and lying and that parents have a fundamental right to control the upbringing and education of their children. During the 2020-2021 school year, there were two students in Ricard’s class that were biological females and enrolled in the District’s record system under their legal first and last names with their biological sexes. Both students requested to go by names that were different than their legal names and pronouns inconsistent with their biological sex. That was the school year during which those violations happened that I just discussed a couple of minutes ago. But then, at the time of the lawsuit, Ricard had two new transgender students in her class. One student told Ricard of a preferred name and pronouns in fall 2021 and the other told Ricard in March 2022 of their preferred name and pronoun. Ricard referred to both students by their preferred first names but avoided using their preferred pronouns to be consistent with her religious beliefs. However, she would occasionally use pronouns when referring to students in class. On one occasion, Ricard had to email the parents of one transgender student regarding the student’s performance in class. Because the student had not authorized the district to disclose the student’s transgender status to the parents, Ricard had to use the student’s legal name and biological pronouns in the email despite using the student’s preferred name and preferred pronouns at school. Ricard says addressing students one way at school and another way when speaking to their parents is dishonest and violates her religious beliefs.
Ricard sought a religious exemption from the district’s policy but was denied. At this point, Ricard had a lawyer propose another policy to the school board that would allow teachers to uniformly address students by their enrolled names – this policy was rejected. Ricard then filed suit against the school district superintendent, board members, and the principal arguing that denying her requests to use the student’s legal name and pronouns deprived her of due process and equal protection of law and violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and exercise of religion.
Ricard told CNN in an email that she continues to enjoy teaching her students day in and day out (this email was before she retired but after the lawsuit was filed), but the stigma of being officially labeled a “bully” for simply using a student’s enrolled last name has been disheartening. She says she loves all of her students but shouldn’t be forced to contradict her core beliefs in order to teach math in a public school. In the lawsuit, she said that not using a student’s preferred pronouns does not interfere with the efficient functioning of a school or create a hostile learning environment. LBGTQ+ organizations see it differently though.
Joel Baum, senior director of the nonprofit Gender Spectrum, says “We know from long term, very powerful research that affirming a young person’s gender leads to better health and well-being. This is about the basic rights and dignity of a human being. Your beliefs do not allow you to refuse to acknowledge who a student is.”
By the same token, Melanie Willingham-Jaggers, executive director of GLSEN, a national organization supporting LGBTQ+ students and educators, said: “Transgender youth are more likely to consider suicide than their peers, and experience other mental health crises which are exacerbated when they face this kind of stigma in the classroom.” According to GLSEN research, more than 40% of transgender students in Kansas report being unable to use their chosen name and correct pronouns in school.
In April of this year, Ricard’s attorneys filed a motion to essentially halt enforcement of both components of the district’s policy – the Preferred Names and Pronouns Policy, which required Ricard to use the student’s preferred name and pronouns, and the Communication with Parents Policy, which prohibited Ricard from using the student’s preferred name and pronouns when talking to the student’s parents. Specifically, Ricard was seeking injunctive relief from these policies. Injunctive relief for those that aren’t familiar is when a court orders a party to stop doing something – either temporarily or permanently. And, in order to prove injunctive relief should be granted, the plaintiff (in Kansas) must show the likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, a balancing of the harms to the parties weighs in favor of the plaintiff, and the public interest favors the injunction. So, keeping that in mind, the court heard arguments from both sides on May 6th and made its decision on May 9th by and through a court order. The Order denied injunctive relief regarding the Preferred Names and Pronouns Policy but granted injunctive relief regarding the Communication with Parents Policy. Let’s talk about the first policy first – the Preferred Names and Pronouns Policy. When it came time to argue in court, the district represented at the hearing that an employee is not required to use preferred pronouns and may refer to students only by their preferred first name. Ricard didn’t have an issue with this. She testified at the hearing that she has been and is willing to continue referring to all students by their preferred first names and not their preferred pronouns. So, the court found that because both parties were in agreement, and because referring to the student by their preferred first name would not constitute a violation of district policy, there was no harm and therefore no need for injunctive relief. Because remember, irreparable harm is a requirement for injunctive relief.
Now let’s move on to the second policy - Communication with Parents Policy. This policy prohibited employees from revealing to parents that a student has requested the use of a preferred name of different set of pronouns at school unless the student requests the administration to do so. Again, like this first policy, Ricard says this policy violates her free speech and free exercise rights under the First Amendment and her due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. In deciding whether to grant the injunctive relief, the court ran through the factors it had to consider. The first being Ricard’s likelihood of success on the merits. The court noted that the fundamental principle of the free exercise clause is that government commit itself to religious tolerance, and under this principal, government laws and rules that burden religious exercise and “presumptively unconstitutional unless they are both neutral and generally applicable.” If a rule that burdens religious exercise is not neutral and generally applicable, it will only survive constitutional challenge if the government (and in this case, the school district) can demonstrate interests of the highest order and that the rule in question is narrowly tailored to achieve those interests.
So, essentially, the first step is for the court to determine whether a rule burdens the exercise of religion. If it doesn’t, there’s no issue. But if it does, then the government has to determine whether the rule is both neutral and generally applicable. If it is, no issue. But if it’s not, then the only way for that rule to survive constitutional challenge, is for the school district to show that their interests are so important and that this rule is the only way to protect that interest.
Here, Ricard was able to show that the rule burdened her exercise of religion because the Bible prohibits dishonesty and lying and that, according to her, the policy is encouraging a form of dishonesty, concealment, and omission by having to use one name when talking to the parent and another when talking to the student. The district countered by saying the policy doesn’t require Ricard to use any name or pronoun in conversation with the parents and that Ricard can just say “your student” or “your child” and avoid names or pronouns completely. But the court says, no, this is unrealistic. Such a system would be impossible to comply with and when a teacher slipped up, he or she could face discipline. The court ultimately agreed that this policy burdened Ricard’s religious rights. Because of that, they moved on to step 2, which was to determine whether the policy was neutral and generally applicable.
The court found that the policy was not generally applicable because, among other reasons, the district had created multiple exceptions but was unwilling to create an exception for Ricard’s religious reasons. So, since it wasn’t generally applicable, the last step was to determine whether the district could demonstrate the policy was justified by “interests of the highest order” – also known as compelling interests – and that the policy at issue is narrowly tailored to achieve those interests.
Precedent said that the interest the court was to consider was the genuine interest at the time the policy was adopted. And when the policy was adopted in 2021, the district sent out an email. And in that email, the district told parents that the reason for the policy was to comply with FERPA, which stands for the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. But the problem according to the court was that FERPA does not prohibit the district from communicating with parents about their minor child’s preferred name and pronouns. In fact, FERPA is a law that specifically empowers parents to receive information about their minor students. So, the court said that the District could not have had a legitimate, compelling interest in withholding information based on FERPA when FERPA in fact required the district to disclose the very information at issue.
So, the court denies a preliminary injunction on the Preferred Names and Pronouns Policy but granted the injunction on the Communication with Parents Policy. Once this Order was entered though, the District realized it was probably in their best interest to settle since the judge had already determined Ricard was likely to prevail. So, they rescinded the Communication with Parents Policy and settled with Ricard for $95,000 and called it a day. So that is what happened in that case. Again, super curious to hear your thoughts on this to let me know on my website.
The fourth topic of the day is the US approving a potential $1.1B Taiwan arms sale. On Friday, the US State Department approved a potential $1.1B sale of military equipment to Taiwan. This potential sale has left China feeling pretty unhappy. The proposed deal includes a $655M dollar radar system to track incoming missles and $355M dollars’ worth of harpoon missiles capable of sinking ships. It also includes surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles worth $85.6M. So, it’s technically three separate sales, but together, the three sales total $1.1B. The pentagon announced the deal on Friday in the wake of China’s aggressive military drills around Taiwan following a visit to the island last month by Nancy Pelosi. China claims Taiwan as its own territory and has never ruled out using force to bring the democratically ruled island under its control. Taiwan, though, says the People’s Republic of China has never ruled the island and has no right to claim it. Apparently, China did not appreciate the visit by Nancy Pelosi and felt a bit threatened. Afterall, Nancy Pelosi became the highest-ranking US official to visit Taiwan in 25 years. Following her visit, China carried out military exercises around the island of Taiwan and promised to continue to monitor and patrol the Taiwan Strait and be prepared for conflict.
The potential sale to Taiwan signals the US’s support of Taiwan despite pressure from China and falls in line with the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, which the US pledges to provide support to help Taiwan defend itself but does not commit to direct involvement in armed conflict. Keep in mind, this isn’t the first time the US has sold weapons to Taiwan. In October 2020, when Former President Trump was in office, the US sold $2.4B worth of weapons to Taiwan. Since 2010, the US has announced more than $23B in arms sales to Taiwan. The reason this sale is making news now is because 1. It’s the largest arms sale since President Biden took office, and 2. Because of the rising tensions with China.
Laura Rosenberger, White House senior director for China and Taiwan said in a statement, “As the PRC (People’s Republic of China) continues to increase pressure on Taiwan – including through heightened military air and maritime presence around Taiwan – and engages in attempts to change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, we’re providing Taiwan with what it needs to maintain its self-defense capabilities.” A spokesperson for the Department of State said the deal was “essential for Taiwan’s security” and called on Beijing “to cease its military, diplomatic and economic pressure against Taiwan and instead engage in meaningful dialogue.”
The Chinese embassy in Washington called on the US to revoke the deal or face “counter-measures.” So, yeah, safe to say China isn’t thrilled. Although the sale isn’t final until it passes Congress, both Democratic and Republican congressional aides said they do not expect opposition so it’s likely to move forward. And speaking of Congress’s approval, let’s move on to the fifth and final story, which is that the White House is asking Congress for $47.1 billion dollars in emergency funding to cover expected costs for Ukraine, COVID-19, monkeypox, and natural disasters.
Nearly half of that amount, roughly $22B, would be specifically for COVID funding and would go toward stockpiling vaccines and tests as well as research and development and the global vaccine response. The White House originally asked for this funding back in March, but Republicans pushed back on it. Due to the pushback, the White House allegedly had to reprogram some funding and pause a program that sent out free at-home test kids because they didn’t have enough funding apparently.
So, $11.7 billion of the $47.1 billion would go towards military-related costs and direct economic support for Ukraine, $4.5 billion would go towards monkeypox (specifically vaccinations, testing and treatment) and $6.5 billion would go towards disaster response like helping with the costs for the recent flooding in Kentucky. The administration hopes the funding request will become part of an upcoming short-term spending bill aimed at funding the federal government beyond September 30th when the current spending package is set to expire. If a stop-gap spending bill isn’t passed by midnight on September 30th, we could see a partial government shutdown, so we will see what happens with that. And that completes our week in review.
I hope you thoroughly enjoyed this episode, and if you did, please take a few seconds to leave me a five-star review. Don’t forget to leave a comment on jordanismylawyer.com and share your thoughts so we can talk about some of these stories a bit more. Thank you for tuning in to another Monday on the Jordan Is My Lawyer podcast where I break down the news stories of the previous week in an unbiased, fact-based manner so you can form your own opinions without any outside noise. Don’t forget to tune in tomorrow for an all-new true crime episode. And I will talk to you guys then.