On today's episode of the 5 Things podcast: A second aid convoy has arrived in Gaza. Multiple Republican lawmakers lash out as the House remains frozen without a speaker. USA TODAY Supreme Court Correspondent John Fritze looks at court challenges to FDA authority. A new rule forces some Florida schools to segregate bathrooms by sex assigned at birth. USA TODAY Personal Finance Reporter Daniel de Visé explains how many couples are leaving money on the table when it comes to their 401 (k) plans.

Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here

Hit play on the player above to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript below. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.

Taylor Wilson:

Good morning. I'm Taylor Wilson, and this is 5 Things you need to know, Monday the 23rd of October 2023.

Today, more aid arrives in Gaza. Plus, GOP lawmakers lash out amid Speaker chaos. And the FDA's authority is being challenged in court.

♦

Israel struck targets across Gaza earlier today, including in areas where civilians had been told to seek refuge. And the Israeli military has ramped up its reach, also striking targets in Syria and Lebanon in recent days, amid growing concerns that the war will spread more widely across the Middle East. Israel is expected to launch a ground defensive in Gaza after Hamas attacked Southern Israel earlier this month, killing more than 1,000 Israelis and taking more than 200 hostage.

Intensified military actions come as a second convoy of trucks carrying humanitarian aid arrived late yesterday from Egypt in Gaza after a long delay. An Israeli blockade of Gaza has largely cut off food and supplies since the war began. And Doctors Without Borders warns that thousands of pregnant women in the Gaza Strip, who could give birth within weeks, are in serious danger because they're not able to reach a medical facility to deliver. Israeli officials put the Israeli death toll at more than 1400 in this month's war, and the Gaza Health Ministry says the Palestinian death toll has passed 4,300.

♦

Multiple GOP lawmakers lashed out at their colleagues yesterday as the House remains frozen without a Speaker. Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy told NBC's Meet the Press that the situation is embarrassing for the party and the country as a whole. He was ousted by a handful of hard-right Republicans earlier this month, and Republicans in the Chamber have since failed to agree on a new Speaker. McCarthy wasn't the only one to use the word embarrassing. Republican Congressman Michael McCaul told ABC's This Week that in his 10th term in Congress, this is probably one of the most embarrassing things he's seen. Republicans are expected to hold another internal vote to determine a nominee tomorrow. Without a Speaker, the House cannot pass crucial legislation, including funding packages to avoid a government shutdown or aid amid the Israel-Hamas war.

♦

A pending lawsuit challenging the Food and Drug Administration's authority over the drug, Ivermectin, is one of several targeting the agency's power in court. I spoke with USA Today Supreme Court Correspondent, John Fritze, to learn more. Hey there, John.

John Fritze:

Hi Taylor.

Taylor Wilson:

Can you just remind our listeners, John, what is Ivermectin, and what's that issue in this suit?

John Fritze:

I mean, most people know it as a drug that's used to treat farm animals at higher doses. And this is what the FDA was concerned about when this cropped up as a drug that some people wanted to fight off COVID-19. The issue is that the FDA never approved this drug for COVID-19. There is an approved use in humans, so it's not like it's just for farm animals and it's used for certain parasitic-based infections, but not COVID-19. What's happening here is that several doctors that wanted to prescribe this drug sued the FDA, arguing that the FDA overstepped its bounds with a social media campaign and a post on its website that talked about not using this drug, staying away from this drug. And what the doctors argue is, look, off-label use is something that doctors typically decide on, and the FDA doesn't have any business being involved. The FDA counters that, look, it wasn't a final decision. They were simply highlighting the fact that this drug is not approved and never has been approved for COVID-19.

Taylor Wilson:

Other challenges have moved through the courts as well surrounding FDA authority. How does the abortion fight play in here, John?

John Fritze:

Yeah, I just think it's interesting. FDA has been sued a lot. It's not a new thing, but what public health people talk about is that some of these suits are getting more directly to the FDA scientific authority. So it's not just like, did they overstep their bounds with, say, an advertisement? It's like, did they make the right call on approving the drug? And the Mifepristone battle is all about that. It's really all about whether the FDA took the correct steps to approve Mifepristone, which is a common abortion pill. This is a battle that your listeners know. This has been going on for months and months and months, and it's been back and forth to several courts. It's already come to the Supreme Court once, now it's pending at the Supreme Court again.

But I just think that the Mifepristone battle is, it seems to be part of a broader effort to question the FDA's authority. And what some of the conservative groups bringing some of these challenges argue is that, look, the FDA has stepped out too far. And so, it's really an interesting issue. And I think a lot of these cases, certainly Mifepristone's already at the Supreme Court. I suspect several of these others will make their way up as well.

Taylor Wilson:

And John, how about court decisions surrounding e-cigarettes in the vaping industry? How does that play in?

John Fritze:

Yeah. I mean, it's interesting. The Supreme Court just had some vaping cases hanging around, and I actually almost wrote about them. I thought they were interesting, but the court didn't take those cases. And what this is really about is FDA said, "Look, we're going to step in and regulate these things," under a law that gives them the ability to regulate new tobacco products. And they have decided these are tobacco products, and they're certainly new, new-ish. And what's happening is that the FDA is really concerned about these flavored e-cigarettes, because the FDA says they really appeal to kids and that a whole generation of kids are getting addicted to nicotine through these products.

And so, what they've been doing on flavored e-cigarettes is basically denying the company's ability to market them, saying, "No, you can't sell them." And several companies are suing over that. And so far they've been unsuccessful. So far, most of the courts have said, "Yeah, FDA's got a point and they can basically block the marketing of these flavored e-cigarette products." But there's this really interesting case pending at the Fifth Circuit. I think everybody's watching very closely to see if the Fifth is the one circuit that goes the other way on this issue. And if it does, it's almost certain to come up to the Supreme Court.

Taylor Wilson:

Yeah. And I mean, touching on that, John, on this broad conversation around the future of FDA power, how eager does the Supreme Court seem to be to get involved in this debate?

John Fritze:

I'm not sure they're super eager to get involved with it. I'm not sure they're going to have much of a choice. Right? These cases are going to come up. They're going to have to decide what to do. If the Fifth Circuit rules for the e-cigarette companies, well, they're going to have to make a decision there. I mean, I think so far they've been able in several instances on e-cigarettes to not engage, because the lower courts have looked at one way of maintaining the status quo. They've agreed with the FDA and said the FDA had this authority, but if the Fifth Circuit goes the other way, that's going to be a big change. And I think the Supreme Court's likely going to have to address it and decide who's right.

Taylor Wilson:

John Fritze, thanks as always.

John Fritze:

Hey, thank you.

♦

Taylor Wilson:

A rule passed this week by the Florida Board of Education states that bathrooms and changing facilities must be segregated by sex assigned at birth. It's similar to a rule passed in August that applied to schools in the Florida College System. And the new rule applies to colleges and universities licensed by the Commission for Independent Education. That includes cosmetology schools, bartending schools, certain health-related career academies, and more. The rule does not apply to Florida's state universities.

Sebastian Cook is working to become a barber and spends up to 12 hours at the academy he attends. With the rule, the 19-year-old transgender man will be barred from accessing a bathroom he feels comfortable using. He said, "It makes me really terrified to go to school. I am not a woman. I don't look like a woman. More women will be uncomfortable with me in their restroom, when most men don't even realize I'm trans when I use the restroom."

♦

Many couples are missing out on 401(k) savings. I spoke with USA Today Personal Finance Reporter, Daniel de Visé, for more. Daniel, welcome back to 5 Things.

Daniel de Visé:

It is great to be here. Thank you.

Taylor Wilson:

So, can we just outline some basics here to start? What is a 401(k), and how do employer contributions work?

Daniel de Visé:

Yeah. Well, I think almost two thirds of American workers have access to them. And what it is is it's a way that the government and the tax system sets up for you to set aside money for your own retirement. You contribute a percentage of your salary, 5%, 6%, 10%, and in most cases, not all, your employer will kick in maybe 50% of that amount, or 100% match sometimes, up to maybe 6% of your salary. So if you play it right, you can end up with maybe 10 or even 15% of your salary saved at the end of the year. And this is toward your eventual retirement.

Taylor Wilson:

You wrote about how a lot of married couples fail to take full advantage of matching contributions by employers to 401(k) retirement plans. Daniel, how many couples are we talking about here, and how much money are they leaving on the table?

Daniel de Visé:

Yeah. This is from research by researchers at Yale and MIT and the Treasury Department, and it's a great paper. And what it found is that a quarter of couples don't take all of the matching funds that they have available to them. And so, the way this might work is, let's say one spouse takes full advantage of their 401(k) and contributes 10%, and they claim the entire match from their employer. And let's say the other spouse doesn't because, well, you're handling the retirement savings, I'm going to focus on paying bills. I have an example like that in my story actually. So what happens there is one of the partners gets this matching fund from the employer, but the other one does not. And that's how you could leave money on the table. And a quarter of couples do that.

Taylor Wilson:

And Daniel, how does this research speak to a broader issue of financial communication or miscommunication in marriage?

Daniel de Visé:

Well, the thing is that if you ask a friend of yours, "Do you know what your own 401(k) formula is? How much gets matched?" A lot of times people don't know or they don't remember, even less likely to know the answer for their spouse. People don't really talk much to their spouses about money. It's kind of a turnoff if you're out on a date on Friday night, so a lot of people don't communicate. And the point is that if this many couples, a quarter of them across the country, if a quarter of couples are not communicating about 401(k) and are not taking this free money that's available in matching funds from their employer, then what else aren't they communicating about? And that's kind of the broader implication.

Taylor Wilson:

And generally speaking, Daniel, how is high inflation right now and in recent years affecting American's ability to save for retirement?

Daniel de Visé:

Well, right. Inflation reached a 40-year high of, I think, 9% last year. And so as a result of that, the vast majority of people who are saving for retirement are reporting on surveys that they believe it's harder for them to save in the future because everything else costs more. So they're finding it harder to put money away. And the other factor is that the stock market did so badly last year that a lot of people feel like they're behind just from that. So the average person with a retirement account is getting hit on both sides of that equation.

Taylor Wilson:

All right. Daniel de Visé with another personal finance lesson for us. Thank you, Daniel.

Daniel de Visé:

And thank you.

♦

Taylor Wilson:

It's Monday, and with the Israel-Hamas war, Congress still frozen with no Speaker and more, there's little doubt this is going to be yet another heavy news week. So pace yourselves, take a break when you need, and we'll be here as always. And thanks for listening to 5 Things. You can find us every morning of the week on Google Podcasts, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Spotify, or wherever you get your audio. If you have any comments, you can reach us at podcasts@usatoday.com. I'm Taylor Wilson, back tomorrow with more of 5 Things from USA Today.

Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.