UNBIASED - August 10, 2026: Trump's New Birthright Citizenship Orders, the Controversy Surrounding Flock Cameras, and What We Know About the Low Stockpile of Munitions.

Episode Date: August 10, 2026

Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: Trump Issues Two New Executive Orders About Birthright Citizenship and Birth Tourism (1:28) What We Know About the Claims of Low Stockpiles of Munitions (~18:12) The Controversy Behind Flock Cameras; How Do They Square Up With the Fourth Amendment? (~28:24) Quick Hitters (~47:01) Critical Thinking Segment (~51:10) ⁠Watch⁠ this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on ⁠Instagram⁠ and ⁠TikTok⁠. All sources for this episode can be found ⁠here.⁠  Scammers are everywhere! But they can't harm you, if they can't find you! Use code JORDAN at https://incogni.com/jordan and get 60% off an annual plan! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor,

free of charge. BetMGEMGEMP operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming, Ontario. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. It's Monday, August 10th, and we are talking about Trump's new birthright citizenship executive orders. We're talking about what's going on with the low stockpiles of munitions, the controversy over flock cameras, and more. Now, as you guys can probably tell, I've recently been trying to kind of level up the show, not just to get more eyes. on it. Obviously, that's great. We do need more eyes on the show, but also just to make the show better in whatever way I can. I know that it's already great. I know you guys love it. You

guys are obviously here for a reason, but I'm also a big believer in the fact that there's always room for improvement. So this is what I want to ask. If you've had any thoughts within the last few months or within the last year, whatever, of like, you know, oh, Jordan should do more of this. Or I would love if Jordan covered more stories instead of, you know, going so deep into only a few stories or I feel like this is lacking from the show, whatever it might be. I would love if you could just shoot me an email and let me know. My email address is Jordan at unbiasednetwork.com. That's Jordan at unbiased network.com. I'm always looking for ways to make the show better. And I just feel like there's no one, you know, better to ask for help with that than you.

So thank you in advance. I really, really appreciate it. Okay, let's dive into today's episode. The first story has to do with these new executive orders from Trump on Thursday. Right after Thursday's episode went live, President Trump signed two new executive orders involving birthright citizenship and quote unquote birth tourism. And these orders, like, they're kind of confusing because they're related, yes, but they do two different things. So let me give you the background first, and then we'll go through each one, one at a time.

as we've been over before, okay, the 14th Amendment says that anyone who is born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a United States citizen. Well, when Trump took office last year, he issued that executive order that argued that certain children are, you know, born here, but not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. and therefore shouldn't be entitled to birthright citizenship. And he was specifically referring to children whose parents were either here illegally or temporarily. Well, as we know, that executive order went to the Supreme Court. And in June, the court ruled six to three against the order.

So the order was struck down. But there's a little nuance to that six to three votes. So five of the justices, Chief Justice Roberts and justices Barrett Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, all said that, you know, children born here to parents who are here illegally or temporarily are protected outright by the 14th Amendment and are citizens at birth. That is the purpose of the 14th Amendment to the majority. Justice Kavanaugh, he was the sixth vote against Trump's order, but he actually gave a different reason. So he wrote that the Constitution could potentially allow more exceptions to birthright citizenship, but said that Trump's order conflicted with the federal citizenship law that Congress enacted.

And in order for the federal citizenship law to change, Congress would have to change it. It's not something the president can do himself. So either way, Trump's original order could not stand, okay, whether you went with Kavanaugh's justification or the other justices justification, the order was struck down. But the majority also at the same time acknowledged that birthright citizenship has never been completely without exceptions, right? Historically, there have been a handful of narrow circumstances where someone could physically be born on American soil, but not necessarily considered fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction and therefore not U.S. citizens. The easiest example is a child born to

certain foreign diplomats. So imagine an ambassador from another country is stationed in D.C. and has a baby while living here. That baby was, of course, born on U.S. soil, but the ambassador is here as a representative of another government and has diplomatic immunity, which means the United States does not have the same legal authority over that diplomat that it has over, you know, any other person living or visiting the United States. The diplomat is under the authority of the country they represent, regardless of the fact that they're physically here. So historically, their child, a child of a diplomat, has not been considered fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, therefore doesn't automatically become a U.S. citizen just because they are born here.

There are a few other historical exceptions that the Supreme Court has discussed in the past, like children born on foreign government ships, children born to enemy forces that are occupying U.S. territory. And in the past, the court has also treated members of sovereign Native American tribes different. because tribes were considered separate political communities. Congress, of course, had eventually, you know, granted U.S. citizenship to Native Americans and federal law, specifically recognizes people born in the United States to members of native tribes as U.S. citizens. So that example is purely just to provide historical context that throughout history, the Supreme Court has noted these exceptions to birthright citizenship.

So given that context and given the Supreme Court's recent, you know, nuanced decision, Trump's administration is basically saying, okay, look, the Supreme Court says that, you know, we can't exclude everybody whose parents are here illegally or temporarily, but there are historical exceptions that still exist. And we believe that there are certain modern situations that fit within those exceptions. And that's what this first new executive order tries to do. So under the order, if neither parent is a U.S. citizen, federal agencies are being told not to recognize the child as a U.S. citizen when at least one of the following four circumstances applies. The first circumstance involves what the order calls an alien

enemy. And that includes someone who is a member of a State Department designated foreign terrorist organization or someone who's been designated a specially designated global terrorist. So for example, if neither parent is an American citizen and one parent is a member of a designated foreign terrorist organization, the administration's position is that the child of those parents would not automatically receive U.S. citizenship just simply because the child was born here. Now, this is the legal question with that one. The historical exception discussed by the Supreme Court when it, you know, pertains to enemies, is that this is an exception specifically for children born to enemy forces during a hostile

occupation of American territory. Now, that's obviously not the same thing as a member of a terrorist organization who happens to be physically present in the United States, right? So the Trump administration is applying that old exception to a more modern situation. Whether the courts agree with that, you know, remains to be seen, but that's the Trump administration's position. The second category involves foreign government employees. So this includes ambassadors, nationals working at foreign embassies or consulates, people working in an official capacity. for foreign governments, certain employees of international organizations with immunity, people like that. And part of this is pretty straightforward because as we just talked about,

children of certain foreign diplomats are already recognized as an exception to birthright citizenship. But Trump's definition actually includes a broader category of foreign government employees. So again, exactly how far that historical exception, you know, extends, could end up being challenged. The third category is probably where some of the the biggest legal questions will come from. So the order says that citizenship will not be recognized when a parent engages in a commercial transaction to purchase or access birthright citizenship or engaged in fraud to obtain birthright citizenship. And the order specifically says that this can include paying to make sure that the mother is physically present in the United

States or in a U.S. territory to give birth. It even specifically mentions a commercial transaction involving a surrogate who's located in the United States or in a U.S. territory. And this is where the Supreme Court's June ruling really is, I guess, especially relevant, right? Because the majority said that private foreigners who come into the United States, even temporarily, are ordinarily subject to U.S. law. And therefore, their children that are born here satisfy the 14th Amendment. So the Trump administration is arguing that fraud or a commercial arrangement, you know, specifically designed to obtain citizenship, places the situation outside the normal rule that the court recognized. But again, whether the court agrees with that

interpretation is a whole other question. And then finally, there's this fourth category involving U.S. territories. So the order says that a child is not a citizen of the United States if the child is born in a U.S. territory or territorial waters where Congress has not granted citizens. by federal law. The most obvious example here is American Samoa. People born in places like Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, those are, you know, they generally receive citizenship under federal law. But under federal law, people born in American Samoa and Swains Island are generally classified as U.S. nationals, not U.S. citizens. So at least as it applies to American Samoa, this portion of the order pretty much restates what

you know, federal law already says. But just to be clear, this order does not change the citizenship status of people born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or the Northern Mariana Islands, because Congress has already granted citizenship by statute to people born in those territories. So those are really the four new categories that the order identifies as exceptions to birthright citizenship. Again, federal agencies are being told not to recognize a child as a U.S. citizen if neither parent is a U.S. citizen and a parent falls under what the order defines as an alien enemy. A parent is a certain type of foreign government employee, a parent paid or used fraud to arrange for the baby to be born in the United States, specifically to get citizenship, or the child is born in a U.S. territory or territorial waters where Congress has not granted, citizenship by statute. The order does also say this is not an exhaustive list of exceptions, meaning the administration could go ahead and try to identify additional categories that it

believes fall outside birthright citizenship. So that's executive order number one. The second order is called ending birth tourism. And the order defines birth tourism as entering the United States on a non-immigrant visa for the purpose of giving birth on American soil or helping another foreign national do that. In this order, Trump gives the secretaries of state and homeland security the authority to adopt policies and guidance aimed at stopping it. The order says possible consequences for partaking in such action can include denying a visa, preventing someone from entering the country, revoking an existing visa or travel authorization,

removing someone from the United States, permanently barring someone from entering, or taking action against people or businesses that facilitate birth tourism. Notably, there are exceptions for humanitarian reasons or when admission into the country would be in the national interest. Now, the legal authority that Trump cites here in this second executive order is section 215A of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Section 215A gives the president pretty broad authority to set rules and limitations and exceptions that govern the entry of foreign nationals into the United States. But there's also some pretty important context here because the United States already has a rule against using a tourist visa primarily for giving birth here.

In fact, Trump's own state department adopted that rule during his first term. That was back in 2020. So current federal regulations say that getting a B visitor. visa for the primary purpose of giving birth in the United States in order to obtain U.S. citizenship for the child is not a permissible use of that visa. The State Department's current website still explicitly lists birth tourism as a prohibited use of a visitor visa. This new order, though, is directing the government toward potentially tougher enforcement, right?

So things like visa revocations, removal, permanent bars on future entry, action against the people and businesses. that might facilitate this type of travel, things like that. And there's also a slight wording change here to take note of two. So the existing visa regulation refers to travel for the primary purpose of giving birth to obtain citizenship for the child. Trump's new order defines birth tourism a little bit more broadly. It defines birth tourism as entering on a non-immigrant visa for the purpose of giving birth

on American soil. Now, yes, it's a language change, okay, but we don't yet know exactly how, state and Homeland Security are going to apply that new language. So that remains to be seen. But those are the two orders. Now, we will likely see these orders get challenged, as we usually do. If they are challenged, the administration will likely argue that the first order is applying the narrow historical exceptions to birthright citizenship in more modern situations. And the administration will argue that the second order relies on the president's existing immigration authority to regulate who can come into the country. Opponents will likely argue that at least some of those four categories in the

first order go beyond the exceptions that the Supreme Court has recognized. And then any challenges to the second order would most likely depend on how the order is actually implemented, right? How the state and Homeland Security departments actually decide to what policies and rules they decide to write. All right, let's take our first break here. When we come back, we'll clear up what's going on with the low stockpile of munitions, as well as the controversy over flock cameras. Welcome back. Let's talk about this whole story about the U.S. potentially running low on certain munitions because there have been a lot of headlines about this over the last couple of weeks. Trump has publicly pushed back on them. There were reports more recently that he was privately

pretty upset about the situation. And now we know the Pentagon is telling defense companies to really ramp up production. We covered this a little bit in quick hitters. here and there over the last couple of weeks, but I actually want to dive into it a little more, just so we're all kind of on the same page and understand what's going on here. First, I think it's important to just say that when you hear that the United States is running out of munitions, that doesn't mean the military is just like completely running out of weapons, right? The concern here is about the stockpiles of specific types of missiles, pretty important missiles, but specific types of missiles. There are basically two types of missiles that we're talking

about. There are the offensive missiles like Tomahawks and the Army's precision strike missile or prism that, you know, the U.S. uses to hit targets from a long distance. And then there are defensive interceptors like Patriot and Thad missiles, which shoot down incoming missiles. So some of these weapons help us hit them. Others help, you know, stop their weapons from hitting us. And just for a little bit of background, too, these concerns about America's ability to manufacture enough of these weapons, which we'll talk about in more detail in just a little bit, actually go back to before the Iran War. The Pentagon was already working to expand missile production before the war began. And in June, Trump actually signed a presidential determination saying

that the U.S. munitions industrial base was facing limited production capacity, fragile supply chain, production bottlenecks, et cetera. So the underlying production issue is not new. What is new is that the Iran War has obviously required the United States to actually use a lot of these weapons, and we have to replenish those weapons. But if the, you know, if there's production issues, then that obviously causes some problems. So by late July, analysts were starting to raise concerns about how much certain inventories had fallen. So for example, on July 27th, researchers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which is a Washington think tank, estimated that the United States had fewer than a thousand Patriot interceptors and roughly 250 Thad interceptors left. More specifically,

the number of Patriot interceptors had fallen from 2,330 before the war, to 130 when the April C-Suspectors. fire took effect. Then following the most recent round of fighting, the stockpile is now estimated to be between 759 and 827, somewhere in between there, which is a decrease of at least 65% since the conflict began. Now, a really important caveat here is that the stockpile, like the official stockpile numbers are classified. So these aren't official Pentagon inventory numbers. This is CSIS estimating using things that are, I guess, publicly available, right? So Pentagon budget documents that show how many missiles have been purchased, how many missiles have been delivered, information about how many missiles have been used or transferred, production

schedules, estimates of how many missiles have been actually fired during the war, things like that. And again, I just want to be clear, the worry is not that we're going to run out of weapons tomorrow or that we're, you know, we're in a serious precarious position here. The worry is what happens if, let's say the Iran war continues on for a long time or if, God forbid, another conflict were to break out before we could replace these weapons? What if something happens with China or North Korea or another enemy, right, another adversary? Because the issue is you can fire one of these missiles a lot faster than you can manufacture another one. So even if factories are producing new missiles, your overall stockpile can still be shrinking if you're using them faster than you're replacing

them. So at the end of July, once CSIS came out with that report, they started becoming part of the debate over what the U.S. should do next in Iran. So you might remember Trump was considering another major round of strikes. In fact, I believe it was one of the heaviest round of strikes to date. and multiple outlets were reporting that administration and military officials were discussing the declining missile inventories as they were weighing his options. And we know that Trump ultimately did not launch that larger attack. Now, whether that decision was made because of the declining missile inventories, we don't know. Some reporting has suggested that that was one factor. But Trump has said that's not why he held off.

He said that he held off because there's been progress in negotiations and other countries, Saudi Arabia and Oman had requested more time for diplomatic talks. So whether that was part of the equation, who knows? Then just last week on August 4th, Reuters published this report that cited three people familiar with U.S. stockpile data and said that those three individuals said that the army had used up a large amount of its inventory of certain long range precision missiles during this war with Iran. Two of those sources reportedly said the U.S. had used quote-unquote virtually all of its attackums and prism missiles. And then the third source estimated that the U.S. had used a little less than half of its global

tomahawk inventory. Again, though, these numbers are coming from anonymous sources. We don't have the official count because the official count is classified. After that, though, the administration kind of pushed back on that report, right? Trump said the United States has, quote, far more munitions than anyone in the world, end quote, end quote, far more than we need. end quote. He also said defense companies were producing munitions at record levels. The Pentagon similarly said the military has everything it needs to carry out whatever missions the president orders.

And, you know, I will say too, like those statements don't conflict with reports that inventories have fallen. You could have significantly fewer Patriot missiles than you had six months ago and still have enough Patriot missiles to carry out your current mission. The disagreement is really over how low is too low. right, especially when the Pentagon isn't only planning for Iran. It also has to maintain enough weapons for the possibility of other conflicts. So then on August 6th, two days after that Reuters report came out and the administration was pushing back on it, the Washington Post reported, based on two people familiar with the conversation, that Trump had confronted Hegeseth during a cabinet meeting at Camp David about why he hadn't been better informed about

the condition of U.S. munition stockpiles. According to the Post, Trump thought the problem had already been fixed. Heg Seth sort of defended himself and blamed Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg for some of the situation. But that's what the Washington Post reported. The administration says that didn't happen. White House press secretary Caroline Levitt, who says she was in the room, called the report quote unquote 100% fake news. The Pentagon denied that Heggseth misled Trump or blamed Feinberg. And Trump said he was quote unquote extremely happy with the job that Hegsef was doing. But also there's conflicting reporting about what even happened at Camp David. So the Washington Post reported, you know, that there was sort of this conversation. The Trump administration

pushed back on that said that didn't happen. CNN reported based on six people familiar with the meeting that Trump did ask Heggseth about the reports of depleted munitions and seemed frustrated that the information had been made public, but CNN also said that Trump's, Trump wasn't really mad at Hegset. The anger wasn't directed at Hegset. And CNN said that Trump had already known for months that there were these bigger concerns about munitions, which is why he issued that, uh, determination back in June. So we don't really know what happened at this cabinet meeting. There's, there's conflicting reports. What we do know is Trump is not happy about this information becoming public. He called the disclosures, quote unquote, treasonous. He said that people, the people, the people,

responsible for the disclosure should be hunted down. He said the administration would seek, quote, long-term jail sentences, end quote, for the leakers. So regardless of what exactly happened at that Camp David meeting, Trump has made it very clear he's not happy about this information becoming public. But the latest development in this whole saga is that Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg has sent a memo to defense industry executives basically saying, we need weapons faster. Okay, he gave companies no more than 21 days to come back to the Pentagon with plans for accelerating delivery schedules and increasing production of critical weapons. And unlike the Camp David conversation, the Pentagon has confirmed that this memo is real. Pentagon spokesperson

Sean Parnell said in a statement Saturday that the department was actively focused on boosting munitions acquisitions to provide, quote, the weapons are warfighters need at the pace the threat demands. And quote, Parnell confirmed that the Pentagon is working significantly, or is working to significantly speed up the process, but said it was part of a broader modernization effort that predated the Iran conflict. And again, that's supported by the timeline, right? The Pentagon had already signed agreements to substantially increased production of Tomlhocks, Patriots, Thads, and other weapons before all of these headlines. At the same time, though, the war has obviously increased the urgency. So that is what we know. We know missiles are depleted. We just don't know how

far below the military's preferred, you know, stockpile levels certain weapons have fallen. And again, because this information is classified, we probably won't ever know with any degree of certainty. Okay, let's talk about these flock cameras. Over the past few weeks, I have gotten tons of requests to talk about this, but as you might have, you know, been able to tell, the episodes have been pretty jam-packed lately. Today's episode is actually, it's a lighter newsday, so I figured we could just throw it in here. Otherwise, we're going to miss our opportunity to talk about it. And I honestly had no idea what a flock camera even was until recently, like within the last couple of months. So I think that's a good place to start because I figured I can't be the only one that,

you know, didn't know much about this. So flock cameras are made by flock safety, which is a private tech company. Flock safety makes various things. One of those things is what's called automated license plate readers or ALPRs. You've probably actually driven past one without even realizing it. Flock says there are nearly 100,000 cameras in place across more than 6,000 communities in 49 states. So there's a lot of them. They are solar-powered cameras that are typically mounted on the side of roads or at intersections. Whenever a car drives past, the camera will take a picture of the license plate in the car and then used software to record certain data. So things like the license plate number, the make and model of the car, the car's color, the time and location where it was seen,

certain identifying features, so a roof rack, bumper stickers, things like that. And what Flok will do is it will partner with law enforcement agencies and those agencies can then search the database for all of the information that these cameras collect, right? Now, Flok has said, that its license plate readers do not use facial recognition and do not identify the person driving the car. Flock says the thing that it's identifying and taking record of is the actual car, not who's driving the car. And it's also worth pointing out that these cameras have been around for years, okay, since 2022, 2023. It's just that within the last few months, there's been a lot more backlash, and we'll talk more about that in just a few minutes, but they've been around for a while.

The whole debate around these cameras is that on one hand, they can help law enforcement solve crimes and they have. On the other hand, the data can be used to track anyone. And that includes people not accused or suspected of crimes, right? So let's say someone steals your car. Police can put your license plate into what's called a hot list. And if a flock camera somewhere sees that plate, officers will get an alert letting them know exactly where and when the car drove past that particular camera. And the same thing can be done with a car associated with an Amber Alert. Maybe there's, you know, a suspect in some other crime. This is how flock cameras

help law enforcement. And then police can also go back and search historical data. So let's say investigators know that the driver of a silver Honda with a roof rack stole a child. Okay. In some situations, they can search the flock system for silver hondas with a roof rack that passed certain cameras around the time that that child went missing. And there are plenty of examples, you know, of these cameras actually helping police. Flock says that in Colorado, for example, its cameras help police recover six kidnapped children in just five months, including cases where a camera spotted a car connected to an Amber Alert. And police departments around the country have used these systems to, yes, solve kidnapping cases, but also fine stolen cars, tracked down suspects, etc. So you can

understand why law enforcement, you know, likes these cameras. However, on the other side of this, you have the fact that these cameras aren't only taking pictures of cars connected to crimes, right? They photograph every single car that passes them. And when you have thousands and thousands of cameras around the country taking pictures of every single car that passes them, you've potentially created this searchable database showing where millions of Americans cars have been spotted at certain times. So for example, you know, let's say a camera sees your car leaving your neighborhood every morning at the same time. Let's say another camera sees your car showing up near your office around the same time every day. Another camera sees your car going to church every Sunday.

Maybe another camera sees you pulling into the doctor's office every Tuesday. And then maybe there's another camera that sees you spending every Friday night at someone's house. Like these cameras might reveal quite a lot about your everyday life. And that's basically the argument against Flock. It's really a civil liberties and Fourth Amendment argument, really. So groups like the ACLU have argued that when you have such a large network of license plate readers, you know, this can effectively become a form of mass location surveillance because the government can search the movements of people who were never even suspected of committing a crime. Flock has disputed that. Flock says the system is not designed to continuously track individuals and that the information belongs to the local agency

that collected it, that access is limited to authorize users, that searches are logged so supervisors can audit them, and that license plate data is generally automatically deleted after 30 days. However, the exact retention period does vary depending on the jurisdiction and whatever local laws are in place. So this is really where the debate is because, again, on one hand, you could say this isn't actually much different than police watching a car drive down a street and seeing the license plate. A flock camera is basically doing that. It's just automated. But then on the other hand, you have one police officer seeing your car one time. That's very different from having thousands of cameras constantly recording where cars are and putting all

of that information into this searchable database. And a few recent controversies are putting more of a spotlight on some of these concerns. So I want to take our second and final break. here. When we come back, we'll talk about some of the recent controversies surrounding flock cameras, and we'll also talk about what the law says about the legality and constitutionality of all of this. Welcome back. Before the break, we kind of introed the controversy behind flock cameras, and what we need to do now is talk about some of the more specific concerns. So the first concern has to do with who can actually access this information. And one of the big concerns lately has been specifically about ICE.

Now, flock says it does not have a contract with ICE. It says that federal sharing is turned off by default now. So if a federal agency wants to access information that's collected by a local police department, that local police department generally has to choose to allow it. But there's actually another way immigration enforcement can come into the picture. Local police departments can have their flock cameras, check. license plates against federal law enforcement hot lists through this FBI database called the National Crime Information Center. And one of the categories in that system can involve immigration

violations. So ICE doesn't necessarily have to be sitting there searching your local police department's flock database. If a local department has a certain federal hot list turned on, a car connected to one of those lists could potentially trigger an alert when it passes a flock camera. And there have already been fights over this. Last year, an audit in Illinois found that Customs and Border Protection had accessed Illinois license plate information, even though state law limits the use of that kind of information for certain immigration and abortion-related investigations. After that, Flok actually went ahead and paused certain pilot programs it had with Customs and Border

Protection and Homeland Security investigations. And Flok says it has since added more restrictions and so. state-specific safeguards. So that's one concern. Then there's this other concern that people who have valid access to this information, the people who are employed by police departments, might not always use it for the right reasons. And we actually saw this happen in North Carolina last week.

According to the Morrisville Police Chief, investigators found that former officer Elizabeth Snowman allegedly searched for information involving her boyfriend's ex-wife 31 different times. Now, police say there was no legitimate law enforcement reason for any of her searches, and she has since been charged with misdemeanor computer access. So there are people who will misuse this type of data. There's another example out of Texas that speaks to a slightly different concern. Last year, the Johnson County Sheriff's Office used Flock's Network to look for a woman who had self-managed in abortion. One of those searches reached data. from more than 83,000 cameras across thousands of flock networks around the country,

including cameras in states where abortion is legal. Now, the sheriff's office said the original reason they were looking for her was a welfare concern that her family was worried she could be in medical danger. But records that were released later showed investigators were also treating the situation as a death investigation involving pregnancy and that investigators were gathering evidence related to abortion and asking prosecutors whether the woman could be charged. Ultimately, prosecutors told them that Texas law did not allow them to charge her for taking medication to cause the abortion and therefore she was never charged. But the case brought up this whole other

issue of like, even if a local police department is validly allowed to search the system, should an officer in one state be able to search license plate data collected by cameras in other states as well. So now what we're seeing happen in cities and counties is that these cities and counties are deciding whether they want to use these flock cameras, whether the pros outweigh the cons. Just in the last few months, 23 city councils have voted to either cancel, reject, not renew, or deactivate flock cameras in their towns. One of those is Knoxville, Tennessee. Knox County Mayor Glenn Jacobs put a roughly $1 million proposal for hundreds of flock cameras on pause over concerns really centered around data collection in the Fourth Amendment. He told News Nation in an

interview, quote, they're just collecting data as an active surveillance system. And every car that passes through, the data is collected from that car license plate using AI. They make a vehicle fingerprint of the car that includes distinguishing features, make model, color, bumper stickers, roof racks, all these things. And then it's retained for sometimes 30 days or more. And then it's in a searchable database, which really turns the whole concept of a license plate reader on its in that they're not looking for one specific vehicle or specific vehicles. They're just pulling everything in. The really disturbing aspect is when they're deployed in large numbers, they can and they have been used to track individuals' movements without a warrant. We do not have an expectation of

privacy on public streets or in public places, but the government is not supposed to surveil us and spy on us without a warrant. And quote, another similar example is Harrisonburg, Virginia, which actually just went even further. Just a couple of weeks ago, the city council unanimously voted to end its contract with flock and went ahead and mandated that all 31 cameras installed around the city be shut down. There's other jurisdictions that have been kind of towing the line, like finding a middle ground, right,

working to implement more safeguard. So San Jose, California is one of those jurisdictions. San Jose limits data storage to 30 days, and it also restricts camera locations. So cameras can't be placed outside abortion clinics, health care facilities, places of worship, places like that. But now we have to address the legal question. The legal question is, can police actually use flock information without getting a warrant? Or does that go against the Constitution? And as of now, the Supreme Court hasn't really given us

a clear answer when it comes to these types of networks. The analysis is pretty interesting, though. So again, the Fourth Amendment, which we've talked about multiple times, protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures, right? One of the main tests that courts use is whether you had a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you do, a warrant is usually required. If you don't, a warrant might not be required. And generally speaking, you don't have much of an expectation of privacy in your license plate when you're driving around in public. It's literally like hanging on the outside of your car for everyone to see. Okay. So if a police officer sees your plate while you're driving down the road, that's not normally considered a Fourth Amendment.

search that would require a warrant. But then the question becomes, well, what happens when there's this technology that takes millions of those completely legal small observations and starts putting them together to form a searchable database? Does that change things for Fourth Amendment purposes? Because now it's not just Susie's car was on the road at 2 p.m. Now it's Susie's car, or it could be, okay? Susie's car was at Target on Monday, at her doctor's appointment on Tuesday, at her friend's house on Wednesday. She went to her accountants building on Thursday. She showed up for this dinner at this place on Friday. So at some point, critics argue you've gone from just simply seeing a car in public to building a pretty detailed picture of someone's

everyday movements. And there's actually a Supreme Court case that can kind of give us some guidance here. It's a case called Carpenter v. United States. And that case involved cell phone location data. The government had collected months of location data from Carpenter's cell phone without, well, the cell phone carrier, without getting a search warrant. And that data allowed investigator to essentially retrace where his phone had been over time. But the Supreme Court said that that counts as a search under the Fourth Amendment and therefore the government should have gotten a warrant. The court's reasoning was that when you put all of those little pieces of location data

together, you can create a pretty comprehensive picture of where someone's been and by extension, learn a lot about their life, right? each location point by itself might not tell you very much. But when you put them together, you're creating the kind of detailed record of someone's movements that's entitled to Fourth Amendment protection. So privacy advocates argue why wouldn't the same concern apply here? If you have enough law cameras and police can search weeks of data from all of them, you might be able to put together someone's movements in a way that starts looking a lot

like tracking. But law enforcement argues that there's a big difference. Your phone can create extremely detailed, almost continuous location information. A flock camera only sees your car if you happen to drive past that particular camera. And when it does see you, you're driving on a public road where your license plate is already visible to anyone standing there. So the argument is that flock camera data isn't the same as cell phone location data and therefore shouldn't be subject to the same standard. And so far some courts have agreed with that argument actually. So, Earlier this year, a federal judge looked at the flock camera network in Norfolk, Virginia, and said that it did not amount to a Fourth Amendment search.

The judge basically said the cameras weren't capturing enough of a person's movement to create that kind of detailed, continuous tracking that the Supreme Court was worried about in Carpenter. And the Virginia Court of Appeals actually reached a similar finding in a separate case involving the same flock system. But at the end of the day, the least. legal analysis under the Fourth Amendment really comes down to questions like, you know, how many cameras are there? How long is this information stored? How many departments can search it? Can agencies in other states access, access information, you know, across multiple states, what kind of investigation do you need before you're allowed to search somebody's plate? All of those details

can ultimately affect how intrusive the system actually is. And then consequently, whether using it amounts to a Fourth Amendment search that requires a warrant. So that's a bit of the legal analysis. If you are interested in whether your area has flock cameras, there is an organization called D-Flock, and it has this map that shows, I want to say, the alleged locations of flock cameras around the country. And the reason I say alleged is because this map is crowdsourced. So volunteers will essentially report when they see a camera, but the reports aren't independently verified, and the map includes cameras made by other companies, too, because people are just reporting cameras that they see, not necessarily just flock cameras.

So that's what's going on. Hopefully, I answered most of your questions. Let's do some quick hitters. We'll start with the confirmation of Todd Blanche. The Senate confirmed Todd Blanche as attorney general in a 50 to 49 vote after Senator Bill Cassidy announced he would support Blanche's nomination. Cassidy's vote was was was being closely watched because Republican senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski opposed Blanche. So if one more Republican had defected, that could have blocked

his confirmation of all Democrats also voted no. Cassidy said he had concerns about parts of Blanche's record, but ultimately believed Blanche would give President Trump candid legal advice. He said, quote, Blanche is not perfect and he will tell you this, but the choice is. not between perfection and Mr. Blanche. It is between Mr. Blanche and another acting attorney general who may not run the department effectively under President Trump and who indeed may not be as good as Mr. Blanche. End quote. Taylor Farms is now pulling several ready-to-eat products containing jalapinos, including some salsas and guacamolees because the jalapinos may be linked to a multi-state salmonella outbreak. The company says its pulled products contained jalapinos supplied by

coast citrus distributors, which separately recalled fresh jalapinos over possible salmonella contamination. Taylor Farm says it's no longer sourcing from that supplier and federal health officials are investigating the outbreak. Senator Mitch McConnell says he's been released from a rehab center and will continue recovering at home after a June fall and pneumonia. His office says he will maintain an intensive physical therapy schedule and stay engaged in Senate business, but it's unclear when he will return to the Capitol. McConnell is set to retire when his term ends in January. Justice Samuel Alito has confirmed that he does plan to stay on the Supreme Court for another term. Alito, who's 76, has served on the court since 2006.

And a retirement would have given President Trump another Supreme Court vacancy to fill, which is why people were speculating that he might retire. But his comments mean that for now the court's current lineup is expected to remain in place heading into the next term. The Senate voted 90 to 6 to pass a short-term funding bill that would keep the federal government funded at current levels through December 11th, avoiding a shutdown before the election. The bill includes several exceptions that senators negotiated with the White House, including language, blocking transfers of money to Border Patrol, rejecting the White House's $1 billion request for early work on a new Trump-class battleship, delaying a national ban on most intoxicating hemp products, and temporarily blocking

new Trump administration grant review rules. The measure does still have to pass the House when members return from August recess before it can go to President Trump's desk. Boat Captain Manuel Hernandez was charged with 13 counts of reckless endangerment after a boat carrying 14 people capsized near Liberty Island in New York Harbor. A 27-year-old woman and her five-month-old daughter were pulled from the water and later died. Other passengers were rescued. Authorities are still investigating what caused the boat to flip, and federal officials are reportedly looking into whether the vessel was operating as an illegal charter. Despite President Trump saying the U.S. is only semi-negotiating with Iran over reopening the Strait of Hormuz, Iranian officials,

say there are no formal talks and messages are only being exchanged through intermediaries. Iran is demanding U.S. concessions before fully reopening the strait, including sanctions, relief, the release of frozen assets, and changes to the U.S. military posture near Iran. Separately, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu rejected the most recent part of Trump's Gaza peace plan, which we talked about in the last episode, saying Israeli forces will not withdraw until Hamas fully disarms, though Hamas says Israel must first withdraw and end hostilities before it disarms. All right. Now it's time for some critical thinking.

We are, of course, going back to the flock controversy. Remember, the critical thinking segment is not meant to be too complex. It's just meant to be a challenge. It's meant to get you thinking a little bit, get you thinking about why you feel a certain way about a certain issue. Maybe it even makes you change your mind. Okay, first question. I want you to imagine flock cameras.

help solve a thousand serious crimes a year. But in 10 of those cases, someone's information is either improperly accessed or searched. Is that an acceptable tradeoff? What number would change your answer? Now, I want you to imagine you're a city council member in a city that has a contract with flock. Following backlash from a handful of residents in your city, some residents went out and held a little protest. The council has decided to hold a vote on whether to keep or end its contract. How are you voting and why?

And what would make you change your vote? Now, speaking of what might make you change your vote, assume police were required to get a warrant before searching flock data. Would that change your vote? Why or why not? That is what I have for you. Thank you so much for being here. As always, if you loved what you heard in today's episode and you'll

you learned something, please go ahead and leave me a five-star review wherever you listen to this podcast, whether it's on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. I hope you have a fantastic week, and I will talk to you on Thursday.