The World and Everything in It: February 10, 2025

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Today on Legal Docket the Supreme Court weighs half-truths.

KAGAN: He says: I've done a hundred of these surgeries. Turns out that 99 of the patients have died. A hundred of these surgeries. True statement, correct?

NICK EICHER, HOST:  The justices trying to get to the bottom of a political corruption case.

Also the Monday Moneybeat. David Bahnsen is standing by—we’ll talk tariffs, jobs, and DOGE.

And later, the WORLD History Book. Today, the death of one of the last surviving Tuskegee Airmen. We remember the brave pilots.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, February 10th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Good morning!

REICHARD: Now news. Here’s Kent Covington.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: USAID / DOGE battle »  Republicans and Democrats continue to clash over DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency. The independent office, led by tech business titan Elon Musk is making good on Trump’s campaign promise to pry open the books on Washington spending.

Democrats aren’t happy about it. Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut told ABC’s This Week:

MURPHY:  The president wants to be able to decide how and where money is spent so that he can reward his political friends. He can punish his political enemies. That is the evisceration of democracy.

They also say it amounts to allowing an unelected billionaire to take over the government, referring to Musk.

Republicans say they have one of the brightest minds in America working under the president’s authority … helping to fix what’s broken. Congressman Mike Turner of Ohio:

TURNER:  The fact that we have Elon Musk looking from the private sector into the public sector, advising the president in ways that we can find ways to, to reduce overall spending, to get this, this curve down is incredibly important and an unbelievable opportunity for, for our government.

Republicans say DOGE is already uncovering shocking waste, fraud, and abuse and charge that Democrats are just afraid of what else DOGE will find.

DHS deportations » The Trump administration has been ramping up deportations of illegal immigrants.

As of last week, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has made 7,400 arrests since President Trump’s inauguration. But Border Czar Tom Homan said Sunday:

HOMAN:  I'm not satisfied yet, we gotta have more, uh, criminal arrests, and the sanctuary cities are slowing us down. But, uh, we're gonna keep coming, we're gonna keep coming, and they're not gonna stop us.

Recent numbers shared by the Texas Department of Public Safety suggest that migrant encounters at the southern border are down sharply.

Migrants to Guantanamo » Among those deported were the first migrants sent to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba last week. The U.S. has had a migrant detention facility at GITMO for decades. It is separate from the detention facility there used to hold suspected terrorists.

Some groups, like the ACLU have been highly critical of the decision to house illegal migrants there. But DHS Secretary Kristi Noem says they’re not moving just any migrants to GITMO.

NOEM:  I watched a plane load of people unload at Gitmo that were pedophiles, child pornographers. Um, they were drug dealers in our communities That's who we're putting down there at Gitmo.

And she said even so,  the military is on the ground to make sure the facilities meet U. S. standards.

Top level talks on Ukraine » President Trump’s national security adviser Mike Waltz says that top administration officials are traveling to Europe this week. He says they will be talking to European officials about how to end the war in Ukraine, nearly three years after Russia launched an all-out invasion. He told NBC’s Meet the Press.

WALTZ:  Russia's economy is not doing well. Uh, he is prepared to tax, to tariff, to sanction. Uh, we need to get all sides of the table and end this war. And it has come up in conversations with President Xi, uh, with Prime Minister Modi, uh, with leaders across the Middle East, everybody is ready to help President Trump end this war.

Multiple reports on Sunday stated that Trump has spoken with Vladimir Putin by phone about ending the war. But neither the White House nor the Kremlin could immediately confirm that.

Alaska plane crash » In Alaska, authorities say they have recovered the remains of all 10 people killed when their small plane crashed into ice on the Bering Sea.

Recovery crews had been racing to recover the bodies before a winter storm was expected to hit the region.

Crews then went to work trying to recover the plane.

National Transportation Safety Board Chairwoman Jennefer Homendy:

HOMENDY:  Please know that we'll work diligently to determine how this happened with the ultimate goal of improving safety here in Alaska and across the United States.

The Bering Air single-engine turboprop plane was traveling from Unalakleet to the hub community of Nome when it disappeared Thursday afternoon. It was found the next day after an extensive search.

Super Bowl » The Kansas City Chiefs were denied a third straight Super Bowl victory last night.

AUDIO: For the second time, the Vince Lombardi trophy is headed to Philadelphia. The Eagles fly in Super Bowl 59! 

Fox Sports with the call there … Philadelphia Eagles routed the Kansas City Chiefs 40 to 22 last night.

Quarterback Jalen Hurts was the Super Bowl MVP … after throwing for 2 touchdowns and running for another.

President Trump was in attendance in New Orleans, becoming the first president in office to attend a Super Bowl.

I’m Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: the Supreme Court considers the question if telling the truth requires telling the whole truth. Plus, the Monday Moneybeat with economics David Bahnsen.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s Monday the 10th of February.

This is WORLD Radio and we’re so glad to have you along with us today! Good morning, I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher.

Before we continue this morning, an exciting opportunity for families of The World and Everything in It, WORLD’s daily video news for students is once again offering a free trial for three months.

REICHARD: WORLD Watch. It’s a great way for families with young students at home to keep up on the news of the day, but it’s a lot more than that. It’s a way to spark meaningful conversations about current events, to see your kids grow in compassion and discernment, and pray for the world together.

EICHER: For more information visit: worldwatch.news/radio. We’ll include a link in our show notes as well. worldwatch.news/radio

Now after the trial period is over at the end of three months we’ll offer to continue WORLD Watch each day for just $6.99-a-month, and that comes out to only about thirty five cents a program, that’s a great deal tailored for families who value learning together.

This offer ends on February 18th 

REICHARD: And now time for Legal Docket. First, a case with big numbers, big questions, and even bigger loopholes.

The question is: Can a technically truthful statement still be a crime if it is a misleading statement? Or put another way: can a half-truth land you in whole trouble?

The trial court heard this dispute in 2022, with lots of media coverage in Chicago:

PBS: Jury selection has been completed in the federal tax fraud trial of a member of a prominent political family. 11th Ward Alderman Patrick Daley Thompson is facing seven charges that he lied to federal bank regulators and filed false tax returns.

Yes, that Daley, from the family that ran a political machine and made the term “Chicago politics” synonymous with political corruption. He’s the grandson of the late mayor Richard J. Daley and the nephew of former mayor Richard M. Daley.

PBS: His lawyers are arguing that you know he’s just sort of sloppy and forgetful, a bit of a hot mess. Prosecutors say, you know, hot mess or not, lying on your taxes is still a crime.

EICHER: The case is Thompson versus U.S. At issue are three loans former Alderman Thompson took out, totaling up to more than $200,000. He used the money to buy into his law firm, pay off a tax bill, and settle another debt.

When the bank collapsed and the feds came calling, Thompson told them only about the 100-thousand that he owed. He left out the detail of two other loans that accounted for the rest of it.

REICHARD: So the government charged him with fraud.

Thompson defended himself, saying he never outright lied. He really did take out a loan for $110,000.

Still, the jury convicted Thompson on all 7 counts of tax fraud. And he appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now, the justices must decide whether “misleading but true” is enough to convict.

Chief Justice John Roberts posed a hypothetical:

ROBERTS: …You know, a police officer pulls a person over, thinks he's drunk, says, you know, have --have you been drinking? And the person says, "I've had one cocktail," when, in fact, he had one cocktail and four glasses of wine. I mean, is that treated differently under the statute that says just "false" and the statute that says "false and misleading"? I can see that being misleading, but I'm not sure it would qualify as false under the literal meaning of the word.

Thompson’s attorney Chris Gair argued that Congress only criminalized outright falsehoods under the relevant law.  Not misleading half-truths.

GAIR: At the outset, at its most basic, the word "false" means not true. It is, therefore, implausible to suggest that the statute that punishes false statements includes some types of true statement. "False" and "true but misleading" are different concepts. When Congress means to prohibit both, it does so explicitly using both terms, as it has in over 100 places in the United States Code.

EICHER: Arguing for the government, Assistant Solicitor General Caroline Flynn. She argued that Thompson’s omissions were functionally false. After all, leaving out that hundred-thousand-dollar detail? That’s more than an “oops.”

FLYNN: …a statement is false if it conveys an untrue message to the listener in context, even if the precise words used, considered in a vacuum, could possibly carry another meaning. So, here, when, in response to receiving an invoice telling Petitioner that he owed the FDIC $269,000, Petitioner then told the FDIC's agents that he was shocked by the letter, had no idea where the 269 number comes from, and had borrowed $110,000, he made a false statement because he clearly conveyed the message that he did not owe the higher amount. And 12 members of the jury in this case, who were not given a specialized definition of what "false" means and, therefore, must have applied the concept as ordinarily understood, agreed.

EICHER: Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan posed vivid hypotheticals of their own:

SOTOMAYOR: Counsel, - if you say a packet of toxic mushrooms is a hundred percent natural. Toxic mushrooms are a hundred percent toxic. But it may be misleading if you're selling it because people may bel

REICHARD: Kagan suggested sending the case back to lower court to figure out whether Thompson’s statement was false and misleading, or plain old false. 

Meanwhile, Justice Neil Gorsuch wondered whether this case is even suitable to alter the scope of laws on fraud. In this clip you’ll hear him say: “QP” … that means “question presented.”

GORSUCH; Ms. Flynn, the question presented is whether the statute prohibits making a statement that is misleading but not false. That's the QP, not --not what qualifies as falsity, how much context, who shot John. None of that's in --in the QP.

Thompson’s lawyers say a ruling against him could criminalize vague or incomplete statements in financial dealings.

On the other hand, a ruling for Thompson could open up a creative new loophole for fraud.

EICHER: Now to a case about firefighting, disability, and retirement benefits. The Supreme Court is hearing Stanley v. City of Sanford, a showdown over disability rights under the ADA—the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Karyn Stanley spent almost two decades fighting fires in Sanford, Florida. But when Parkinson’s forced her into early retirement, she got an unwelcome surprise—her health benefits ran out after just two years. That’s because of a policy change made 15 years earlier.

REICHARD: Stanley argues it’s discrimination. She says retirees like her were promised coverage until age 65—but because she left due to a disability, she lost that safety net. The city, meanwhile, says the rules were in place long before she retired.

Now, the justices will decide: Can retirees sue for disability discrimination over lost benefits? The ruling could have big implications for workers forced out by illness.

EICHER: The city’s argument at the Supreme Court is that the ADA doesn’t cover retirees.

Stanley says she was qualified at the time the City put its policy in place. But in 2003, the City limited health subsidies for disabled retirees to just 24 months. Stanley says she didn’t find out about that until her own subsidy expired.

REICHARD: The issue? The ADA says it protects “qualified individuals.” But does the definition of “qualified” depend on whether a person is “employed”? 

Her lawyer, Deepak Gupta:

GUPTA: I do want to urge the Court in its opinion to be careful not to foreclose other scenarios that the City's reading would permit, particularly given the City's failure to identify any plausible reason why Congress would have wanted to draw this arbitrary line. A firefighter who becomes disabled saving people from a burning building could be discriminated against the next month. A retired firefighter who develops a respiratory condition from years of smoke exposure could lose health coverage.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed the City on its argument that you first have to retire and then sue to make retirement benefits take effect. Listen to her exchange with Christopher Conner for the City:

JACKSON: Okay. And she says, at the time that I held the job, I became disabled and that policy applied to me. It --I was subject to it in that period of time. So…why would we pretend as though that is not a fact in the case, not here, and decide this on a broader question that relates to people who did not hold the job during the time that they were qualified?

CONNER: Because the policy that she describes, that she claims is discriminatory and she describes in her complaint, on its face only applies to a person who becomes completely unable to perform their job and is, therefore, unqualified.

EICHER: The City argues its policy is compassionate because disabled retirees at least get 24 months of benefits. 

But Stanley’s lawyer points out that non-disabled retirees keep their subsidies until Medicare kicks in at age 65.

Justice Alito is seeking a guiding principle:

ALITO: Your client says that -I'm a victim of discrimination based on disability because I should be treated the same way as somebody who worked 25 years. How is a court supposed to determine whether this distinction between somebody who works 25 years and somebody who works a shorter period and retires based on disability is unlawful? What is the test for determining that?

GUPTA: Yeah. I mean, I think it will --it will turn a lot on the claim. Let me try to describe what I think is going on here…

REICHARD: The City says it must cut benefits to control costs. 

Justice Kagan suggested that the court could decide this case narrowly, just for Stanley, rather than the broader issue of post-employment ADA claims.

For Stanley, though, the stakes amount to $1,000 a month. That’s not trivial for a career firefighter now fighting Parkinson’s Disease.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket!

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: The Monday Moneybeat.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Time now to talk business, markets, and the economy with financial analyst and adviser David Bahnsen. David heads up the wealth management firm The Bahnsen Group. He is here now—with a little market volatility in the respiratory system. David, good morning, and with a diminished supply of voice but no shortage of insight, special thanks for joining me today.

JOHN STONESTREET: Well, thanks for having me, Nick.

EICHER: All right. Let’s talk tariffs. When we talk about the president’s tariff threats, the big question is always whether these moves are actually delivering results or just adding to market volatility. So given how broad these negotiations can be, how should we assess the effectiveness? How do we separate real policy wins from just headlines?

STONESTREET: Well, I think Nick, the answer to that is going to be different case by case with different countries around different policy agendas.

That's part of the confusion of the whole topic is that sometimes we're told we're trying to get more support for border control.

So the way to see if it worked or not is if we get more support for border control, right? The promise of more support or some kind of headline around it is not quite the same thing.

But if in the end, you end up with certain resources that yield fruit around fentanyl coming across the border, around staving off illegal immigration, you know, those things are pretty measurable in the end.

Those are not the only policy objectives we're talking about. You know, that situation a few weeks ago with Colombia, we wanted to land a plane that had some Colombian migrants on it—and we ended up landing the plane.

That's pretty small-ball stuff in the grand scheme of things.

Once you bring China in the mix, it becomes very different because then you're talking about trade or currency or terms of trade. You're talking about intellectual property with the European Union, we're talking about things with automotive. So there's so many different report cards that we're going to be running here. It gets pretty confusing.

EICHER: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been controversial since day one. Critics, including you, making the argument that it doesn’t really protect consumers, that it actually hurts them and hurts small businesses instead of the big ones that can cope with all of its regulatory costs. But now under White House Budget Director Russ Vought, it looks like the agency is on the chopping block. It’ll either get its wings clipped or be dismantled entirely. And with Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency clearly on the move, I wonder whether you see the developments of last week as a major policy victory, or might this be something even bigger?

BAHNSEN: Well, look, I've been a very big critic of the CFPB since the day Obama and Elizabeth Warren enacted it.

I do not believe it was constitutional. I do not believe it was prudent. I do not believe it was ever done the right way. It set out to solve a problem we didn't have with solutions that didn't do any such thing.

So it can't go away soon enough as far as I'm concerned.

It's primarily because I think it invites more problems. I think by putting random regulations on certain aspects of financial products and services, those come at a cost to other users of financial products and services. I see regulation as a subsidy—meaning it hurts the little guy more than it hurts the big guy. And I have a big problem with that when it comes to public policy.

The CFPB is likely going to be one of the success stories of DOGE and OMB and Trump 2.0—because it was already constitutionally vulnerable. They have ways—the way that Obama fallaciously put it together—they have ways they can fallaciously take it down. That's what they're doing.

EICHER: Speaking of government agencies under the microscope, USAID has been one of the biggest early targets of DOGE. But there’s been a lot of noise around it—both from its defenders and from those eager to see it go. Honestly, the reporting on what’s actually happening has been at best inconsistent. With all that in mind, how do you assess what’s been done so far? Or is it still too soon to tell?

BAHNSEN: I don't think listeners are going to be totally satisfied with my answer—because it's a little bit of “on one hand, this” and “on the other hand, that.”

I don't believe that there's been a lot of honest reporting about what they've done. I don't believe there's been a lot of honest reporting about what USAID was doing. I think last week there was a chance for a lot of people on both sides of the aisle to pounce on things that weren't fully understood

But I think USAID’s a disaster. Even though I tend to be more conservative, methodical, and deliberative in the way I want to take things down, there is a very fair argument to be made that they have to go blow things up and put them back together later.

I'm not a revolutionary, so that spirit is uncomfortable for me. But I understand in this case it may be the only way they can get started is to start with a kind of blunt instrument and work backwards. So USAID deserves to have a scalpel taken to it, deserves to be thoroughly looked at.

It's hard to analyze how well they've done because the reporting on it has not been very accurate. So we're going to need a few months to do assess how not only effective the cuts were, but what accurately was cut. You know, what's the accurate assessment of what was cut? I think it's gonna take several months.

EICHER: All right, before we go, the January jobs report is in. How’d you read it?

BAHNSEN: It was a little bit softer than expected. There were 143,000 jobs created in January. I think the consensus was that it was going to be about 175,000—so it came a little bit light. But the unemployment rate ticked lower down to 4%.

It wasn't a meaningfully significant jobs report either way. But if it had come in really strong—say, 250,000, like the December report—then that might get people to worry about the Fed. Everyone plays that game of saying that good news is bad news. (Meaning, the assumption that strong employment is “inflationary,” and that will prompt the Fed to keep interest rates unnecessarily high as a way of fighting inflation.)

This came in somewhere in the middle, but really I think we need a few months into the new year to get a feel for how the business optimism that we've seen tick up since the new administration, as well as some of the deregulatory efforts, what kind of impact it has to the jobs market. Overall, Nick, it's been this way for a long time—4% give or take unemployment—and on a weekly basis, the initial jobless claims have stayed right around 220,000. That's a very low and manageable number.

EICHER: David Bahnsen, founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group. David writes at dividendcafe.com and regularly for WORLD Opinions. David, again, thanks for battling through that nasty cold. Keep getting better, and I hope you have a great week!

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick, appreciate it.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday, February 10th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Up next, the WORLD History Book. Last week, one of the last surviving Tuskegee Airman died at his home in Michigan, Lt. Col. Harry T. Stewart Jr. He was one hundred years old.

The Tuskegee Airmen were a group of all-black pilots during World War Two  when American schools, churches, and the military were still segregated.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Stewart was just seventeen when he volunteered for the U.S. Army Air Forces. Here’s WORLD correspondent Caleb Welde.

CALEB WELDE: On September 16th, 1940, Franklin Delano Roosevelt signs the Selective Service Act requiring all men from age 21 to 36 to register with local draft boards. It also prohibits the Armed service from “discrimination against any person on account of race or color.”

The same day, the War Department announces that the Civil Aeronautics Authority will be working with the U.S. Army to develop—in its words—“colored personnel” to serve as airmen. The Army settles on Tuskegee, Alabama as the place to train these men.

RADIO NEWSCAST: We interrupt this program to bring you a special news bulletin. The Japanese have attacked Pearl Harbor by air, president Roosevelt has just announced.

The attack on Pearl Harbor only intensifies the Army’s resolve to develop a strong air force. And an air force needs pilots.

INTERVIEWER: What was it like when you got to Tuskegee?

In 2019, the Americans Veterans Center recorded this interview with Harry Stewart Jr.

STEWART: Well, of course, as a youngster of 18 years old, I was wide eyed and awestruck by all of the things I saw.

Stewart had volunteered to join the military. He passed the Pilot Cadet exam even though at the time, he didn’t even know how to drive a car.

STEWART: I had never met a group of talented men like this before with so much talent within the group itself. And the talent was broad-ranged…

The Tuskegee base is ninety-nine percent African American.

STEWART: We trained from the same playbook as the rest of the Army, Air Corps there. There was no difference as far as the training was concerned for the Negro soldiers versus the white cadets.

As far as the Army Air Corp is concerned, Tuskegee is an experiment. The Corp is still relying heavily on a 1925 Army War College report. The report claimed African Americans were unfit for any type of combat duty. The document was titled “The Use of Negro Manpower in War.” But the need for soldiers and airmen won out.

STEWART: The training itself, though, was arduous, it was quite demanding. The actual flight training itself took place over a period of 10 months, and was involved with three phases of flying.

First, a fabric 95-horsepower plane. Then, onto an all-metal 450 horsepower plane. Phase three: an actual fighter. Stewart got to train in a P-51 Mustang. He got orders to Italy in November of 1944.

NEWSREEL: The last 18 hours has brought the greatest air attacks of all time against Germany…

STEWART: We flew escorts for the B 24 Liberator bombers and the B 17 Flying Fortress.

Stewart’s first mission was helping to escort several hundred of these bombers. They were headed for targets near Vienna, Austria.

STEWART: Each one of those bombers had a crew of 10, which meant if that bomber were lost, it was shot down, that would be 10 men that were lost. So for those that we didn't lose, and we felt as though this was a feeling that we had done a great deal in saving the balance of those men who were flying.

The Tuskegee men eventually earned a reputation.

STEWART: Out of the seven fighter groups that were bomber escorts in the 15th Air Force which we were in, our group, or the 332nd, or better known at the time as the Tuskegee Airmen, had the best record. As far as the loss of bombers were concerned.

Of the nine hundred Tuskegee pilots, only about three hundred were deployed during World War Two. These men completed more than fifteen hundred combat missions. They destroyed or damaged around four hundred enemy planes. They even sank a destroyer.

NEWSREEL: General Eisenhower informs me that the forces of Germany surrendered to the United Nations. The flags of freedom fly all over Europe.

Stewart moved to Columbus, Ohio after the war. He stayed in the service through 1949. That same year President Truman signed an executive order to end racial discrimination in the military. Stewart was skeptical.

STEWART: And it turned out to be they they did a very, very good job. As far as integrating, the service was concerned, there was, you know, no discrimination. As far as the job requirements and the job offers and the job performances were concerned there.

Outside the military it was a different story.

STEWART: I tried and I applied for the a couple of airlines at the time there, but I was not hired. And the reason was that they were not hiring any African American pilots or crew members at the time within any airlines in the States.

According to his biography, a personnel manager at Pan-Am told him, “Just imagine what passengers would think if, during a flight, they saw a Negro step out of the cockpit and walk down the aisle in a pilot’s uniform?”

Stewart eventually did find a job working for the City of New York. He started going to night classes. In 1963, graduated with a Bachelors in engineering.

He went on to work for several corporations, and eventually settled with his wife outside Detroit. He’s survived by his daughter Lori.

INTERVIEWER: Anything else you'd like to add, sir?

STEWART: No, that's that's about it. As you know, I can say that. You know, it's been a blessing for for me, as far as my life is concerned, and I wouldn't change any of it for anything.

That’s this week’s WORLD History Book. I’m Caleb Welde.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: Gaza under new management? President Trump last week proposed that the U.S. rebuild the Gaza Strip. We’ll have analysis. That and more tomorrow.

I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard.

The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio. WORLD’s mission is Biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

The Bible records that Mary “entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud cry, ‘Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!’” —Luke 1:40-42

Go now in grace and peace.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.