UNBIASED - August 20, 2026: Minnesota Sues Gov. Abbott over ICE Agent Extradition, Trump Taps New FDA Nominee, Big Bend National Park Controversy, National Debt Hits $40 Trillion, and More,

Episode Date: August 20, 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: Minnesota Sues Texas Gov. Abbott Over ICE Extradition Request (0:42) U.S. Officials Detail How Oil Is Being Transported Out of Strait of Hormuz (8:43) Trump Nominates Dr. Heidi Overton to Lead FDA (12:40) CBP Commissioner Pauses Border-Security Construction in Big Bend National Park Amid Backlash (~19:05) National Debt Hits $40 Trillion (~24:53) Judge Removed From Karmelo Anthony Case; New Judge Will Decide New Trial Request (~30:23) Latest Meta Trial Over Child Safety and Mental Health Gets Underway (~37:45) Quick Hitters (~44:02) Critical Thinking Segment (~46:24) ⁠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

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. It's Thursday, August 20th, and we're talking about this extradition fight between Minnesota and Texas, Trump's new FDA nominee, the controversy in Big Bend, the national debt, and more. If you're watching on YouTube, you've already noticed this is an audio only episode. I'm recording out of studio today, but we will be back with video on Monday. As always, if you love today's show, please take a few seconds and click that share button and send it off to someone you know, whether it's a friend, a coworker, a family member, whoever, word of mouth is everything and I really appreciate it. First up, Minnesota is suing Texas Governor Greg Abbott over an ICE agent who's facing criminal charges in Minnesota. And the reason Abbott is being sued is because Abbott hasn't approved the request to send the agent back to Minnesota.

So let's break this down. The ice agent at the center of all this, his name is Christian Castro. And this goes all the way back to a shooting in Minneapolis on January 14th of this year during Operation Metro Surge. According to the criminal complaint, Castro was pursuing a man named Alfredo Alhorna, who was trying to get back inside his house. The two got into a struggle outside, and then Alhorna and another man, Julio Sassalas, ran into the house.

house. Prosecutors say Castro then fired a shot through the front door of the house and the bullet hit Sosa Seles in the leg and then eventually ended up in the wall of a child's bedroom. There were four adults and two children inside the house at the time that all of this happened. Now Castro gave investigators a different account of what happened. He said multiple men had attacked him, including hitting him with a broom and a snow shovel and that he fired. the shot as the men were running back toward the house after the attack. However, prosecutors say surveillance video contradicted at least parts of that account. For example, they say the video shows Sosaceles, the one that was shot in the leg, putting the snow shoveled down before

Castro reached the house and fired that shot. Sosceles did tell investigators that he swung a broom toward Castro, but he said he didn't actually hit him with it. Federal prosecutors had originally charged so Cicillis and El Hornow with assaulting a federal officer based in part on Castro's account of what happened. But those charges were later dismissed because the U.S. Attorney's Office said newly discovered evidence was materially inconsistent with allegations in the original complaint. So then in May, Minnesota prosecutors charged Castro with four felony counts of second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon and one misdemeanor count of falsely reporting a crime. Minnesota then issued a nationwide warrant for his arrest. Investigators found him in Texas.

Texas Rangers arrested him on May 29th, and he's been held in a county jail in South Texas ever since. Now, this is where Governor Abbott comes in. So normally, when someone is charged for the crime in one state but then is arrested in another state, The state bringing the charges can ask for that person to be extradited back. So essentially, like in this case, Minnesota would say, hey, Texas, this person's facing charges here in Minnesota. Please go ahead and send him back so this case can move forward. And Governor Walsh formally made that request on June 2nd. But Abbott has not signed off on it and it's now August 20th.

Now, Minnesota says the delay is especially notable because Abbott has generally acted on its past. extradition requests much more quickly. According to Minnesota's lawsuit over the last five years, Abbott has approved extradition requests from Minnesota in less than 30 days on average. And while cashers request has remained pending, Abbott has approved the extradition of three other defendants back to Minnesota. Abbott, though, has said that he doesn't trust Walls because of the fraud cases involving Minnesota administered programs that received federal money and has said Minnesota should acknowledge responsibility and repay the federal government first. So Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has now gone to federal court, filed this lawsuit,

arguing that Abbott can't hold up cashers extradition because of a separate fight with Minnesota over fraud in federally funded social service programs. But this is also where the Constitution comes in. So the Constitution has something called the extradition clause. If someone is charged with a crime in one state and is later found in another state, that second state generally has to return that person once the legal requirements for extradition have been satisfied. Generally, the requesting state has to submit the proper authenticated charging documents. The person has to actually be charged with a crime there. The person being held has to be the person named in the extradition request.

and they have to qualify as a fugitive from that state. Those are essentially the questions the governor is looking at when deciding whether to extradite someone. And there's actually a Supreme Court case from 1987 called Puerto Rico versus Brandstand, where the court addressed the issue we're seeing right now, really. The court unanimously held in that case that a governor's obligation to comply with a valid extradition request is mandatory and that federal courts can enforce that duty. So the governor's role in the extradition process is pretty much limited to determining whether those legal requirements have been met, not whether the underlying prosecution or the

underlying charges are solid. If the constitutional and statutory requirements have been met, the extradition obligation is mandatory. So Minnesota argues those requirements have been met here. And now it's asking a federal judge to, one, decide whether or else. Abbot's refusal to issue the extradition warrant violates federal and state law. And two, for the court to order him to sign it. As of right now, Abbott hasn't argued that Minnesota's paperwork is defective or that one of

the basic, you know, extradition requirements hasn't been met. His stated reason, like I said, for refusing to act has been this dispute with walls over fraud in Minnesota. Now, Abbott's response in this lawsuit is due on Monday. So we might get a more specific legal argument at that point. but as of right now, we don't, we don't really have a specific legal argument from his side. Now, separate from Abbott's extradition decision, there's another legal issue that could become relevant if Castro is sent back to Minnesota. DHS has said that Minnesota should not be allowed

to prosecute Castro because he was a federal officer acting in the course of his job. And federal officers can sometimes be protected from state prosecution under a doctrine called Supremacy Clause immunity. Supremacy Clause immunity applies when the conduct at issue, was authorized by federal law and was necessary and proper for carrying out their federal duties. At the same time, that protection isn't automatic just because someone's a federal employee. Whether it applies to a situation is really a question for a court. It depends on the specific circumstances. So that'll come into play later, assuming this prosecution moves forward.

But the immunity question is separate from the immediate issue before the court, which is, does Texas have to send this agent back to Minnesota? Now, under Texas law, Castro cannot stay in jail indefinitely while this extradition fight plays out. Attorneys told the federal judge this week that his 90-day detention period runs out next week. And because of that, the judge has put this case on a bit of a fast track. So right now, Castro remains in custody in Texas. Abbott has not approved Minnesota's extradition request. And Minnesota is asking a federal judge to intervene before that detention.

window expires. Both sides have to submit written arguments by August 24th, and there is an in-person hearing the next day where the judge is expected to consider whether Castro can stay in custody as that 90-day detention window comes to an end. The bigger question of whether Abbott is ultimately required to approve the extradition might be decided separately after that hearing happens. And whenever the judge ultimately decides on the extradition issue, that could, of course, you know, be appealed and then this might end up taking longer to sort out. Okay, moving on. We have a pretty interesting update out of this trade of Hormuz, where the U.S. military has been helping move oil and commercial ships through the strait for months as this war with Iran continues, and

normal shipping is disrupted, but we're now learning a lot more about how that operation is working. So according to new reporting, U.S. officials say the military has established a shipping corridor through the southern portion of the strait closer to Oman and is coordinating groups of tankers that move through the night. The operation reportedly works in both directions. So empty tankers are helped into the Persian Gulf so they can pick up oil from countries in the region. And then loaded tankers are then moved back out into the Arabian Sea. According to those officials, roughly 15 to 20 tankers have been entering and exiting the strait each night through the this corridor over the last couple of weeks. They say the amount of oil being exported through

Hormuz has climbed to around 10 million barrels per day, which is still only about half of what moved through there before the war, but definitely more than during some of the more severe disruptions earlier on in this conflict. And the way this is reportedly happening, like I said, is pretty coordinated. So a military task force based in Fort Bragg in North Carolina works with Gulf countries to create lists of tankers that need to enter and leave the Persian Gulf. The ships are then grouped together and told when to move through the Southern Channel with one group traveling in and another traveling out during separate windows. And then there's also U.S. fighter jets that are being used to help protect the ships from Iranian

drones and missiles. And the officials say that the U.S. was able to establish this corridor after a roughly two-week sent-com military campaign that says, significantly damaged Iran's radar and maritime surveillance systems along the strait. Now, it's worth noting that Iran hasn't acknowledged losing control of the street. And in fact, it's kind of saying the opposite. Iranian military officials continue to insist that ships cannot travel through Hormuz without Iran's permission and that Iran remains in control of the strait. However, according to some maritime analysis, the shipping data suggests that Iran has,

at least for now, lost some control over how vessels are moving through the strait. About a month ago, data and analytics platform, Kepler, which provides intelligence on maritime logistics, reported that virtually no shipping traffic was happening through the Omani route in the strait. Now, Kepler says more than 80% of liquids transiting through the Strait of Hormuzes over the past two weeks have taken the Omani route. And the Omani route, by the way, is the shipping route that runs through Omani territorial waters rather than the Iran preferred route that's a bit further north. It is the Omani route is a U.N. authorized shipping channel. Iran is very much against it. It much prefers that northern route, like I said. Now, there is an interesting discrepancy in the

numbers here that I think is worth pointing out. So, U.S. officials told Axios that 15 to 20 tankers are moving in and out each night, right? But publicly available Kepler data showed only six commodity vessels crossing the straight on Tuesday, which was down from nine the day before and below the recent average of 11 per day. Now, that doesn't mean one of those numbers is wrong. The reports are measuring traffic differently for one. And two, when you have ships that are operating in a conflict zone, particularly as part of a coordinated military operation, like what's happening here, these ships might very well turn off or limit the tracking signals that are normally used by commercial ship tracking services. So commercial tracking data might not capture every ship that's

actually moving through the straight. But that's a little bit about what's going on there, a little secret-ish operation, if you will. President Trump has picked Dr. Heidi Overton to be the next commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, which means if confirmed, she would take over the agency that's responsible for regulating prescription and over-the-counter drugs, vaccines, devices, tobacco products, much of the nation's food supply. The list goes on. Now, Overton is currently the deputy director of the White House Domestic Policy Council. She's been involved in several of Trump's health policy initiatives like the efforts to lower prescription drug prices and the administration's recent overhaul of the childhood vaccine recommendations. She was involved in those

things. But let's talk a little bit about her. Who is she? For one, she's a doctor. She's board certified in public health and general preventative medicine. Before joining the Trump administration, she worked at the America First Policy Institute. It's a conservative think tank that is certainly connected to Trump's policy agenda. But when she was there, she became the chief policy officer and vice chair of its center for a healthy America. And she actually worked in the White House during Trump's first term, too. She served as a White House fellow in 2019 and 2020. Now, keep in mind, whoever takes this job is inheriting an FDA that's gone through a lot of turnover, right? Trump's previous FDA commissioner, Dr. Marty McCarrey, he resigned in May after just over a year in the position.

And since then, FDA deputy commissioner Kyle Diomontes has been running the agency on an acting basis. At the same time, the FDA has lost more than 3,000 employees over the past year, and that includes senior officials and division heads. So one of the big questions surrounding Overton's nomination is whether she has the experience to lead the agency through everything that it's going through. And critics have pointed out that while she does have experience in medicine and research and health policy, she's never managed an organization anywhere close to the size of the FDA. Supporters, though, point to those same medical and policy credentials along with her experience inside the White House and argue that she has relevant scientific and policy experience. and already understands the administration's health policy priorities. Of course, she does still have to be confirmed by the Senate before she takes over the role. And we can expect our confirmation hearing to cover several major issues facing the FDA.

Two that are especially likely to come up are vaccines and abortion medication. Last week, Overton was in the Oval Office when Trump signed that executive order directing his administration to revise the childhood vaccine framework. and she's voiced support for the administration's approach of relying on what it calls, quote-unquote, gold-standard science and giving parents more decision-making authority. And then the abortion medication is another one. Before joining the White House, she co-authored a policy paper criticizing the expansion of medication abortion through telehealth and argued that the FDA should take a more restrictive approach because of safety concerns. And because the FDA not only regulates Miffa Pristone, but has also been conducting a review of the drug since last year, her reviews will likely almost certainly come up once she does appear before the Senate. Okay, let's take a quick break here when we come back. We'll talk about the Big Bend controversy, the national debts, and more.

Welcome back. Customs and Border Protection has now paused border security construction inside Big Bend National Park in Texas following lawsuits and some bipartisan. pushback. And there's been some confusion about what exactly or why exactly the administration is building there in part because the plans have changed over time. So let's start there. CBP initially planned to build a roughly 30 foot tall ballard style border wall through sections of Big Bend National Park as well as some neighboring parkland. Earlier this year, though, the administration kind of backed away from that plan and said it wouldn't build the 30 foot wall through the National Park, but instead it would build things like a new access road, improvements to existing roads, technology to detect illegal crossings, and then also some

vehicle barriers in certain locations. So earlier this month, equipment started moving dirt inside the park as Cruz started what CBP said was surveying and design work for that infrastructure. But then on Monday, CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott announced that he was pausing all construction inside the National Park while he visits the area, evaluates the project himself, and meets with local officials and other stakeholders. Now, the administration's argument is basically that Big Bend still needs additional border security, even if it doesn't look like other parts of the southern border. Big Bend National Park sits directly along the U.S. Mexico border, and DHS has formally designated the broader Big Bend Border Patrol sector as an area of

high illegal entry. The department says border patrol apprehended more than 89,000 people crossing between ports of entry in the entire Big Bend sector from fiscal years 2021 through 2025, and that agents also seized marijuana, cocaine, meth, heroin, and fentanyl during that period. DHS says that additional barriers, roads, and technology are necessary, both to deter illegal crossings and to prevent smugglers from shifting their routes into big bend. as other portions of the border become more secure. One important piece of context just to add to those numbers. So those numbers that I just cited from the administration cover the entire big bend sector,

not Big Bend National Park specifically. The big bend sector is bigger than just Big Bend National Park. It actually covers 77 Texas counties and more than 500 miles of the border. And it's historically been the least busy Border Patrol sector along the South border. In fiscal year 2025, for example, it recorded about 3,100 apprehensions and accounted for roughly 1.3% of apprehensions across the entire U.S.-Mexico border. But that difference is really what's at the center of the debate. Critics of the project argue that Big Ben's geography already provides this natural barrier through mountains, deserts, canyons, in some places there's really tall cliffs.

And they argue that on top of that, construction on this land could damage. wildlife habitats, archaeological sites, Native American cultural sites, and that the landscape, you know, drives tourism in the area and they don't want to get rid of that. And plus, they argue that the additional border security benefit isn't enough to justify those costs. And the criticism hasn't broken down neatly along party lines either. Republican Senator John Cornyn asked THS to consult with people in the region before continuing construction, a group of sheriffs from counties along the border, including both Republicans and Democrats, has also argued that a continuous physical wall is in the most practical approach for this particular terrain. And then you have

a bipartisan group of 46 members of the Texas House that recently asked Governor Abbott to push for construction in the region to stop. At the same time, there are supporters of keeping additional border security infrastructure on the table. The Trump administration and CBP argue that even though these crossings are relatively low in this particular sector, leaving stretches of the border without additional barriers or surveillance could create vulnerabilities as enforcement increases elsewhere. And in Congress, Republicans have resisted efforts to restrict this barrier construction in Big Bend outright. During one House committee debate, one Republican argued that lawmakers shouldn't completely take the option off the table because this type of border security, you know, makes sense depending on the terrain. But there are several lawsuits challenging different aspects of this project. One lawsuit is asking a federal court to block construction, arguing in part that it threatens religious practices and culturally significant sites of the Le Pan Apache community and that

the federal government lacks the authority it claims to have for some of the work. Other groups are challenging DHS's use of a federal waiver authority that allows the Homeland Security to waive certain legal requirements in order to quickly build border barriers and roads. So, you know, for, for this project in particular, DHS used that authority to waive requirements under laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, and National Historic Preservation Act. The administration's position is that Congress explicitly gave DHS this waiver authority, but opponents are challenging how broadly that authority is being used. So as of right now, the original plan for a 30-foot border wall has been abandoned. And,

construction on the revised version of the project has also been temporarily paused. Now, that doesn't mean the entire project has been canceled. It just means it's on pause until the commissioner takes a closer look at it, hears from people in the area, and then decides how to move forward. Okay, next story. The U.S. national debt has officially crossed $40 trillion for the first time ever. According to the latest Treasury Department data, the total national debt reached about $40.05 trillion this week. But just for some perspective on how quickly that number has been growing. The debt crossed $38 trillion in October of last year, $39 trillion in March, and now less than five months later, we've added another trillion dollars. The debt has also more than doubled in less than a decade.

It was about $19.95 trillion when President Trump first took office in January 2017, about $27.75 trillion, when Biden took office in January 2021 and about $36.2 trillion when Trump came and returned to office in January 2025. Now, before we go any further, I do want to explain what this number represents because the national debt and the federal deficit aren't the same thing. And I think some people tend to confuse them. So just for clarity purposes, the deficit is the amount the federal government comes up short in any given year. So if the government takes in, let's say, $5 trillion, but spends $7,000, trillion dollars, you have roughly a $2 trillion deficit, right? The national debt is the accumulation of all of that borrowing over time. So every year the government runs another deficit, more

gets added to the debt. But there's also a little nuance to that $40 trillion number two. About $32.3 trillion is debt held by the public, which includes Treasury securities owned by individuals, banks, pension funds, foreign governments, the Federal Reserve, and other investors. The other roughly $7.8 trillion is what's called intra-governmental debt, which is the government owing money to itself. So for example, Social Security has trust funds that hold special Treasury securities. So one part of the government, the Treasury, essentially owes money to another part of the government, the Social Security trust funds. Those IOUs are included in the $40 trillion national debt number. And the thing with debt is you have to pay interest, right?

The government is no exception to this. The federal government is now spending roughly $1.1 trillion a year on interest alone. And during the first 10 months of this fiscal year, interest costs were the second largest line item in the federal budget behind Social Security. More was being spent on interest than on Medicare. More was being spent on interest than defense, which is also up there on the federal budget. So interest is accounting for a lot. Now, how did we get to the 40 trillion number? Well, the federal government has been running deficits under both Republican and Democratic administrations for years. The last time the government ran a surplus was in fiscal year 2001. The government took in about $128 billion more than it's spent. Before that, the government actually

ran consecutive surpluses in 1998 and 1999. But But prior to 1998, the last time there was a surplus was 1969. Typically, the government is running a deficit. And COVID really only made things worse. According to Treasury data, the debt grew by about $7.8 trillion during Trump's first term, about $8.4 trillion during Biden's four years. And it's grown another roughly $3.8 trillion since Trump came back to office in January of last year. Looking ahead, the Congressional Budget Office currently projection.

that the federal government will spend about $7.4 trillion in fiscal year 2026 while bringing in about $5.6 trillion. So that leaves a deficit of roughly $1.9 trillion. That brings us to another number we need to watch, which is the debt ceiling. So Congress currently limits federal borrowing to $41.1 trillion. It raised the limit by $5 trillion last year, but currently, as of today, it limits federal borrowing to $41.1 trillion. dollars. The bipartisan policy center estimates the government could hit that limit sometime between late winter and midsummer of 2027. At that point, Treasury could temporarily keep paying the government's bills through cash on hand as well as accounting measures known as extraordinary measures, but eventually Congress would once again have to decide whether to raise or suspend the debt ceiling.

Now, I do want to give you some fun facts. I don't really know how fun they are, but they're facts, nonetheless. So Treasury's historical data goes all the way back to 1790 when the entire federal debt was measured in the tens of millions of dollars. Now it's measured in trillions. By decade, the U.S. added $1 trillion to the debt every 716 days on average in the 2000s, every 331 days on average in the 2010s, and every 146 days on average in the 2020s. And finally, the last fact to have for you. If you started spending $1 billion every single day, it would take you almost 110 years to spend $40 trillion. If you spent $1, every second, it would take you more than 1.2 million years to hit $40 trillion. Okay. So that's the national debt. Now we're going to do

a quick update on the Carmelo Anthony case. This is the case we talked about in depth back in June when Anthony was convicted of murdering 17-year-old Austin Metcalf at a high school track meet in Frisco, Texas. The stabbing happened in April of last year. You probably remember this case. Anthony was sitting under a tent that belonged to Metcalf's track team. Witnesses testified that Metcalf and other students repeatedly told Anthony to leave the tent. The situation escalated. At one point, Anthony reached into a bag and basically said, you know, touch me, see what happens.

Metcalf then pushed Anthony. Anthony pulled out a knife and stabbed Metcalfe. in the chest, Metcalf died. Anthony never disputed the fact that he stabbed Metcalf. His argument at trial was self-defense, but the jury rejected that argument, convicted Anthony of murder, and he was sentenced to 35 years in prison. Well, after the trial, Anthony got a new legal team, a new team of lawyers, and they made two separate requests. One was to give him a new trial. The other was to remove the judge who presided over the original trial so that that judge wouldn't be the judge deciding whether Anthony should get a new trial. That judge is John Roach Jr. So two days after the trial ended,

Roach gave an interview to a local TV station. He was asked whether he thought the jury got it right, and he said, yes, they did. He also defended some of the more strict restrictions he had placed on the media and public access during the trial. So he banned cameras, live streams, and audio recordings inside the courtroom. He limited where members of the public could gather around the courthouse. He imposed certain security restrictions. because of the intense attention and threats that, you know, surrounded the case. So he defended those restrictions and limitations as well. Well, Anthony's attorneys essentially argued that based on Roach's handling of the trial,

as well as the comments he made after the trial, there was now a real question about whether he could fairly decide Anthony's request for a new trial. Because to grant a new trial, a judge has to find that something went seriously enough wrong during the original trial to justify setting aside the verdict and starting over. Anthony's attorneys argued that after publicly defending aspects of the trial and saying the jury got it right, Roach could no longer objectively evaluate whether that same trial had serious serious enough problems to warrant a new one. So they asked that Roach be recused. And recusal just means removing a judge from a case because there's some reason to question whether that judge

can be impartial. Now, Anthony's attorneys didn't have to prove that Roach was definitively biased against Anthony. Under the relevant Texas rule, the question is whether the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. So another judge, senior judge, Sid Harrell, was brought in specifically to decide that issue. And what he said was that he personally felt that Roach could fairly hear Anthony's request for a new trial, but that was not the legal test. The question was whether looking at all of the circumstances from the outside, a reasonable person could question Roach's impartiality. And he said the answer to that question was yes. So Judge Roach was officially recused from all further proceedings in Anthony's case. And now a separate judge will be

overseeing the request for the new trial. So this is a whole other question. Should Anthony get a new trial. Well, the new judge, Michael Chitty, has been assigned to the case. He's actually scheduled to hear Anthony's motion for a new trial today and will, you know, whether that's in the coming days or whatever, we'll issue a decision on that. That motion is basically Anthony's attorneys asking the trial court to set aside his conviction and start over because they believe there were serious enough problems during that original trial to justify doing so. And they've raised several arguments. So one is that the restrictions on the media and public access to the courtroom violated Anthony's constitutional right to a public trial. They've also raised a dispute over and off the record agreement between

prosecutors and the defense about what character evidence could be introduced. And they argue that that issue affected Anthony's decision not to testify in his own defense. So those are the, those are the main arguments that they have presented as to why Anthony should get a new trial. Prosecutors, though, have pushed back on those claims. Prosecutors maintain that the trial was conducted fairly and ethically and the conviction should stand. So those are the issues Judge Chitty now has to sort through. But I think the easiest way to keep these two developments straight is by thinking about it like this, because I had a few messages from you guys asking what exactly was happening and what all of this meant. So yesterday's hearing was about the judge. Today's

hearing is about the trial. Anthony prevailed on the first issue. Judge Roach is officially off the case, but now a different judge has to decide whether the problems Anthony's attorneys say happened during his trial were actually serious enough to justify giving him an entirely new one. At this point, his conviction still stands. It has not been overturned. This new judge will just have to decide whether that conviction is ultimately thrown out and Anthony is given a new trial. Let's take our second and final break here.

When we come back, we'll talk briefly about this new meta trial and then we'll finish with quick hitters and critical thinking. Welcome back. Okay, so we're going to talk about this latest meta trial that just got underway this week. But with all this talk about cases and trials, we just talked about the Carmelo Anthony case. Now we're talking about meta. And I have had a ton of requests to talk about the Lindsay Clancy trial, which I totally get everyone's talking about it. I feel like I'm at this point right now where it's almost like too late to jump in.

I haven't really decided what I'm going to do. I don't know if I'm just going to wait until a verdict and then talk about it. I don't know, but I just wanted to be transparent and let you know that I'm weighing these things in my head trying to figure out how to go about it. I hear your request. I see your request and I will figure out how to approach the situation. But let's talk about meta. Meta is back in court for another major trial. This one could end up being one of the biggest legal challenges we've seen over the effects that social media has on kids. So a bipartisan group of 29 states is suing meta, accusing it of intentionally designing parts of its platforms to keep. kids and teenagers engaged, while at the same time misleading parents and the public about how safe

those platforms were for young people. This lawsuit was actually filed back in 2023, but the trial is just getting underway in federal court this week in Oakland, California. And there are really two different sets of allegations here. So the four states leading this case, California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey are accusing meta of violating state consumer protection laws through a allegedly deceptive and unfair business practices. All 29 states are also accusing META of violating a federal children's privacy law by improperly collecting and using personal information from kids under the age of 13. Now, META has denied those allegations, but let's start with the first part, because this is basically the heart of the case. The states argue that META intentionally built

features into Instagram and Facebook that encourage young people to stay on the apps for as long as possible. So things like infinite scroll, likes, notifications, other engagement features. And they say that the reason that meta designed these platforms to be this way is because the more time people spend on the platforms, the more money meta can make. And the states say meta knew young users were struggling with compulsive or problematic use, but publicly downplayed those concerns. And they're pointing in part to meta's own internal research and communication. So for example, some internal meta documents described Instagram use among teens as addictive or difficult to control, while meta executives publicly disputed characterizations that the company's products were addictive.

Meta, on the other hand, says the states are oversimplifying a much more complicated issue. Its attorneys argue that the evidence does not establish that using Instagram or Facebook causes poor mental health and teenagers and that the company's goal has not been to make its products dangerous or addictive. The company also points to safety tools and restrictions that it's developed for younger users and says hundreds of employees work specifically on safety. Meta's attorneys have also argued that some of the internal comments being highlighted by the states in this case are being taken out of context or reflect individual employees using loose language rather than proof that the company intentionally designed its products to addict children. So the states are

essentially saying meta knew these design choices could contribute to problematic use among younger users and continued using them because engagement was financially valuable. While meta is saying this is much more complicated and these are much more complicated questions about teenagers' mental health, you can't just blame them entirely on social media and then use these selected internal comments to prove that the company intentionally caused those problems. So that's really the issue at the heart of the case. Then there's a separate issue involving kids under the age of 13. And the federal law involved here is called the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. The idea is that if an online service knows that it's collecting personal

information from a child under 13, it generally has to notify the parents and get verifiable parental consent before collecting that information. Meta technically requires users to be at least 13 to have an Instagram or Facebook account. But the states argue that Meta knew there were large numbers of kids younger than 13 using these platforms anyway and still collected and use their data without getting the parents' permission. Meta, however, disputes it had the type of knowledge necessary to make it liable under the law. So really, the focus of the trial is on whether meta violated state consumer protection laws by designing its platforms in the way states say encouraged compulsive use among young people and then misleading the public about those risks. And separately,

whether met a violated federal law by knowingly collecting data from children under the age of 13 without parental consent. And one reason this case could have broader consequences is that the states aren't just asking for money. They're asking for changes to the platforms themselves. The four states leading this case have proposed things like getting rid of the like accounts altogether, getting rid of the infinite scroll feature for younger users, imposing time limits, doing more to keep children under 13 off platforms, things like that. And then, of course, there could also be a very large financial penalty of meta loses. However, and I've seen a lot of numbers in the headlines around this, and I want to be clear, meta has calculated that the penalties the states are pursuing could theoretically reach as high as $1.4 trillion.

But the attorneys general recently said the number could be closer to $200 billion. So big discrepancy there. At this point, the potential financial penalty is not clear. But the trial officially got underway this week. it's expected to last about six weeks. Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam O'Sary are both expected to testify. There is a jury hearing this case, but interestingly, its verdict will be advisory. So that means the jury will make findings based on the evidence that they hear, give their findings to the judge, but those findings aren't binding. The judge will ultimately

decide whether meta is legally liable. And if it is, what penalties or changes should be ordered. So that's what's going on with meta. Let's do some quick hitters. The USS George Washington is now in the Middle East preparing to relieve the USS Abraham Lincoln. The Lincoln, which we've been talking about quite a lot over the last week or so, has been at sea for an extended deployment due to the war with Iran, leading to concern among lawmakers and military families over reports of the crew's worsening mental health. President Trump has paused, planned 50 percent tariffs on roughly $20 billion worth of Canadian imports until Saturday, giving the U.S. U.S. and Canada a few more days to finalize a trade agreement. Trump says the two sides have reached a deal in principle. Canadian officials say they've made substantial progress, but there are still some major

issues that are unresolved, including U.S. access to Canada's dairy market and tariffs affecting Canadian vehicles. So this pause temporarily avoids an escalation in the trade dispute, but the higher tariffs could still take effect if the two countries don't reach a final agreement by the deadline. federal agents seized electronic devices from former representative Eric Swalwell at San Francisco International Airport on Saturday, including at least one cell phone as part of an ongoing investigation into sexual misconduct allegations. Four women have accused Swalwell of misconduct, including one former staffer who alleges he sexually assaulted her twice, while others have accused him of unwanted kissing or touching and sending unsolicited explicit messages or images. agents also searched his Washington, D.C. home the day after his phone was confiscated at the airport. Swalwell has denied wrongdoing and was not arrested or detained. First Lady Melania Trump is expected to announce an expansion of her fostering the future initiative

through a new partnership with IndyCar and Fox Sports to provide college scholarships for young people who have experienced foster care. The new scholarships will be offered through Indiana University and Purdue University, bringing the initiative. initiatives reached to 26 universities nationwide, with organizers saying 100% of the donated money will go directly toward student scholarships. And ICE has arrested the captain of a boat that capsized near the Statue of Liberty earlier this month, killing a 27-year-old woman and her five-month-old daughter. Federal prosecutors alleged the boat was overcrowded and the captain was operating unlicensed tours. DHS says he was also in the U.S. illegally and will face immigration proceedings after the criminal case. All right, we're going to do today's critical thinking segment a little differently. Usually we tie the critical thinking questions back to a story we covered earlier in the episode.

But today, I want to talk to you about a story we haven't yet covered. This is a story that sparked a lot of debate over the last week or so. It's also a story a lot of you have asked me to cover. And it poses some really interesting legal and ethical questions. So here's the background. McKenna West is a nurse from Alaska who agreed last year to carry a baby for a California couple named Omar Ahmed and Nushin Gilcar. Around 20 weeks into the pregnancy, doctors diagnosed the fetus with hypoplastic left heart

syndrome or HLHS. It's a serious congenital heart defect where the left side of the heart doesn't develop normally, and babies with HLHS typically need treatment almost immediately after they're born. It starts with the first of three major surgeries. Those surgeries can allow children to survive, but they're not. they're not a cure and people with HLHS can face lifelong medical complications. So after the diagnosis and after consulting with medical professionals, the parents decided they

wanted to terminate the pregnancy. And this is kind of where the party's versions of the stories start to split. So West, the surrogate, says that she was pressured to have an abortion and ultimately refused. The parents denied that they tried to force her to have an abortion. In court filings, they say that West initially agreed to terminate and made the abortion appointment herself before later changing her mind and then cutting off contact with the parents. West says she felt pressured to terminate

and ultimately decided she wasn't willing to go through with it. Now, the surrogacy agreement addressed pregnancy termination in the case of a fetal abnormality, but a surrogacy contract cannot give the parents the ability to physically force the surrogate to have an abortion. So the contract said that if a doctor designated by the intended parents determined that there was a fetal abnormality and the intended parents requested an abortion in writing that West agreed to terminate the pregnancy. And if she refused, the contract treated that as a material breach that could require her to either repay money that she had already received or potentially pay additional damages. So a refusal to get an abortion would potentially create financial or contractual consequences,

but you can't force someone to physically undergo an abortion. So after the disagreement, West ends up traveling to Texas. And she asks a Texas court to recognize parental rights for her that would allow her to participate in decisions about the baby's medical treatment. By that point, though, the parents say they had also decided to continue with the pregnancy. According to their court filings, they had consulted specialists in L.A. and Dallas and planned for the surrogate, West, to deliver the baby in California so the baby could begin treatment with a specialized cardiac team there. They say that West's decision to instead go to Texas interfered with those plans. Now, by the time West went to Texas, okay, a California court had already legally recognized Ahmed and Gilcar as the baby's parents. and a California appellate court declined West's request to stop that ruling from taking effect.

Then in Texas, a judge ordered that the baby receive life-sustaining treatment after birth and remain in Texas temporarily after birth, but the same court prevented West from making medical decisions for the baby or representing herself as the baby's mother. So if we take all of those court rulings together, West remained in control of medical decisions. decisions involving her own body during the pregnancy. But once the baby was born, Ahmed and Gilcar were the parents who had medical decision-making authority over the baby. And it was also court-ordered that the baby receive a life-saving treatment once it was born. And the baby had to stay in Texas for the time being. Ultimately, West gave birth in Dallas on August 12. The parents named their son, Rumi, West, and some of her supporters have called the baby Gabriel. Ahmed and Gilcar currently

have custody and they have medical decision-making authority. The baby underwent his first major surgery, which is called the Norwood procedure on August 17th. There's another Texas court hearing scheduled for August 25th and the court is expected to consider whether some of these temporary orders, including the restrictions on West, should stay in place as this lawsuit plays out. But as you can see, okay, this is a pretty complicated story legally. On the abortion front, you have a signed contract that says the surrogate agrees to get an abortion if the intended parents requested one after a fetal abnormality diagnosis, but at the same time, you can't force someone to get an abortion.

Then you have the debate over parental rights. Who should have the say? Who should make the medical decisions for the baby? But there are even more questions underneath all of that. So those are the questions I want to ask you for today's critical thinking segment. First, how enforceable should a contract be when it involves the intended parent's child but the surrogate's body? Should you be allowed to agree ahead of time to something like an abortion and then change your mind later without consequences? Or if there are no consequences, what does that mean for the intended parents who entered into the surrogacy agreement relying on those terms?

then there's the disability question should the severity of the baby's diagnosis change any of your answers who gets to decide whether undergoing multiple major surgeries and potentially lifelong medical treatment is in a child's best interest should it be the legal parents the doctors the surrogate a judge and why and then finally if legal parents decide against a major medical treatment for their child such as you know heart surgery which I'm not saying was the case here, but let's just say hypothetically, legal parents decide against a major surgery like this. When, if ever, should the government be allowed to override that decision? Should it depend on how likely the treatment is to save the child's life? Should it depend on how

much suffering the treatment could involve? Or should the parents generally just have the final say, even if others disagree? That's what I have for you. Thank you so much for being here. As always, if you loved today's show, if you learned a lot, please go ahead and leave me a five-star review, you listen to podcasts. Don't forget to take a few seconds and just share this show with a coworker, a friend, a family member, whoever it might be. Have a fantastic weekend and I will talk to you on Monday.