UNBIASED - December 1, 2025: What We Know About the National Guard Shooting in D.C., Pause on All Asylum Decisions, EPA's Approval of PFAS Chemicals for Pesticides, FDA's Possible Overhaul of Vaccine Approval Process, and More.

Episode Date: December 1, 2025

SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. PEACE TALKS: Want Jordan's advice on how to navigate relationships amid the polarizing political climate? ⁠SUBMIT YOUR DILEMMA HERE⁠. 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: What We Know About the National Guard Shooting in D.C. (2:07) Trump Orders Pause on All Asylum Decisions (~19:38) Georgia Judge Dismisses Election Interference Case Against Trump and Others (~27:21) FDA Memo Signals Possible Changes to Vaccine Approval Process (~36:01) EPA Approves Two New PFAS Chemicals for Use in Pesticides (~44:23) Critical Thinking Segment (~49:25) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

At Capital One, we're more than just a credit card company. We're people just like you who believe in the power of yes. Yes to new opportunities. Yes to second chances. Yes to a fresh start. That's why we've helped over 4 million Canadians get access to a credit card. Because at Capital One, we say yes, so you don't have to hear another no. What will you do with your yes?

Get the yes you've been waiting for at Capital One.ca.ca. slash yes terms and conditions apply welcome back to unbiased your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis welcome back to unbiased politics today is monday december first let's talk about some news a few administrative things just to start the episode first is that i have decided to move the peace talks segment to friday i've heard your calls you love the segment but you don't want it to take away from the news in monday's episodes which is totally fair i totally get that. So for the rest of December, peace talks will now be its own episode on Fridays. And that way, not only will it not take away from Monday's news, but I'll also have time to answer more

submissions. So I'll probably do five submissions per episode, something like that instead of the three that I did last week. The other thing, though, is that those episodes, the Peace Talks, episodes will be audio only. The vast majority of you listen to the podcast rather than watch it anyway. So it'll be no different for all of you guys. But for those that watch this show on YouTube, this is just a heads up that the Peace Talks episodes on Fridays will not be on YouTube. They will only be available in audio format wherever you listen to podcasts. So if you are currently facing a dilemma over politics, whether it's with a friend, a family member, a co-worker, a spouse, or significant other, whoever it might be. And you want my advice on how to

handle it, just click the Peace Talks link in the show notes of this episode, submit via that form. It'll come directly to me. It's completely anonymous. I don't need your name. I don't need your email address. I just need to know what's going on so that I can give you tailored advice. Now, the last quick thing we have to cover before we get into today's news is a scheduling update. Every December, I take off for the holidays for about two weeks. So the last episode of this year we'll go out on Thursday, December 18th, and then I'll pick back up on Monday, January 5th. Just make a mental note of it. The last episode of the year is December 18th.

The show will resume on January 5th. And now, with those things out of the way, we can talk about some news. We have to start today's episode talking about the terrible National Guard shooting that took place the day before Thanksgiving. We'll talk about how that shooting unfolded, who the victims were or are, what we know about the suspect, what we know about his charges, and then we'll segue into Trump's subsequent announcement on restricting immigration and pausing asylum requests. So on Wednesday, November 26th, two West Virginia National Guardsmen were shot at close range in downtown Washington,

D.C., just a few blocks from the White House. Around 2.15 p.m., the gunman turned the corner of 17th and I Street, and he was on foot. And once he was, he was. turned that corner, opened fire on the two guardsmen. He was almost immediately shot by nearby National Guard troops and transported to a nearby hospital. He is still in the hospital, but he is expected to survive. Unfortunately, one of the guardsmen lost her life, while the other remains in critical condition. 20-year-old Sarah Bextrum was the guardsman who passed away. Bexstrom graduated with honors from West Virginia's Webster County High School in June 2023. and joined the Guard just four weeks after graduation to prepare for a future in federal law

enforcement. She eventually wanted to get in with the FBI. Before her National Guard deployment, she worked as a community engagement specialist with a clinic that provides services for teens and young adults that are dealing with mental illnesses, substance abuse problems, or developmental disabilities. And then once she was deployed, she was assigned to the 863 military police company, 111th Engineer Brigade. She was one of roughly 180 National Guard members deployed from West Virginia to D.C.

And she had volunteered to work in D.C. over the Thanksgiving holiday less than 24 hours before that shooting took place. According to her ex-boyfriend, she initially hated the idea of being deployed in D.C. That was when Trump first made the announcement of deploying the National Guard troops, to crack down on crime in D.C., but later she had a change of heart and grew to love the assignment. In fact, she had the option to return to West Virginia sooner, but she opted to stay in D.C. Her boyfriend said that she would go to, she would kind of walk around while patrolling on duty, sometimes not visiting the monuments, but walking by the monuments while on duty,

and then on her own off time, would go actually visit the monuments and museums, and that was something that she loved. But she had also expressed frustrations to him about how the guard was treated by people on the streets of D.C. She told her boyfriend how people would spit at her, throw things at her, cuss her out, wish death upon the troops. But, you know, that at the same time, the troops couldn't do anything about it because they, quote, unquote, had no leeway. Bextram and her ex-boyfriend were together for six years, but they had actually just broken up last month. One of Beckstrom's classmates and friends who spoke to a local news outlet said Beckstrom was a girly girl who ended up wearing camouflage and training with a gun and that that had always surprised

her. But they said that it was all part of her desire to help others. 24-year-old National Guard member U.S. Air Force Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolfe remains in critical condition as of this afternoon. Wolf is also from West Virginia and works as a lineman with frontier communications. Like Bexham he joined the military early earlier than beckstrom actually he joined during his senior year of high school in 2019 and as i said he remains hospitalized and he is quote fighting for his life and quote according to west virginia's governor on thursday morning andrew's father was reached by phone and he just said quote please pray for my son we want prayers end quote the suspect ramanuleuleau Lockenwald. He's 29 years old. He is an Afghan national who came to the United States in 2021 when the United States pulled out of Afghanistan. He actually worked with the CIA for more than 10 years before the United States withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021. He worked in a special Afghan army unit known as NDS-O-3, which was part of what's often called zero units. The zero units were backed by the CIA.

and reportedly carried out nighttime raids on suspected Taliban members and other high-risk counter-terrorism operations. That work, which he started in 2011 and continued until 2021, is what eventually allowed him to come to the United States because he was considered to be more at risk of retribution once Kabul fell to the Taliban. It's important to note that because he had worked for the CIA, he had been vetted by the United States government multiple times. And when the government vets people like this, it looks for any potential ties to terrorist groups.

And at all points, he was clean. He did not show any ties. Now, something that's been questioned is whether he was properly vetted when he was evacuated from Afghanistan in 2021. The director of National Counterterrorism Center said on Friday, in part, quote, it is true that the terrorists who conducted the attack in D.C. was quote unquote, vetted by the intelligence community. However, he was only vetted to serve as a soldier to fight against the Taliban, AQ, and ISIS in Afghanistan. He was not vetted for his suitability to come to America and live

among us as a neighbor, integrate into our communities, or eventually become an American citizen. During Biden's disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, his administration negligently used the vetting standard described above as the standard for being brought directly into the U.S. foregoing previous vetting standards applied to special immigrant visas and any common sense vetting or concern for Americans. As a result, over 85,000 Afghans, including individuals with backgrounds similar to the shooter, were rapidly admitted into our country without the rigorous vetting that has protected us in the past. End quote. Now, what he is referring to is this Justice Department audit, which found no systematic breakdowns in the process,

to screen and vet Afghan evacuees, but did acknowledge that the, quote, normal processes required to determine whether individuals posed a threat to national security and public safety were overtaken by the need to immediately evacuate and protect the lives of Afghans, increasing the potential that bad actors could try to exploit the expedited evacuation. end quote. Now, whether or not the need to immediately evacuate Afghans affected the vetting process of this suspected shooter remains to be seen. But it is important to note that he would have also been vetted after he applied for asylum in 2024. And his asylum request was actually granted this past April, though DHS Secretary Christine Nome has come out and said that the

vetting process, you know, for his application request happened under Biden's administration and not Trump's administration. So it's not entirely clear at this point who completed the most recent vetting process and what that actually looked like. But just to be clear about this timeline when he initially came to the United States in 2021, he was granted parole without permanent immigration status as part of Operation Allies Welcome or OAW. OAW is a program that was introduced by President Biden that allows the federal government to support Afghans as they resettle in the United States. According to the OAW's website, the screening and vetting process involves biometric and biographic screenings conducted by intelligence, law enforcement, and counterterrorism professionals from the DHS and Department of Defense, as well as the FBI, National Counterterrorism Center, and other intelligence community partners prior to their arrival. in the United States. The website also says that if someone fails these checks while they are still

overseas, they will not be permitted to board a flight to the United States. Additionally, all Afghans are required to undergo the same process as other people arriving from outside the United States, namely additional inspection upon arrival and then a secondary inspection as the circumstances require. If upon landing in the United States, further security vetting at the port of entry raises a concern about a person, CBP has the authority to not grant them entry into the United States. So that's a little bit about what the entry process looks like. Now, when he arrived in the U.S., as I said, he was granted parole without permanent immigration status. The details of his exact status are not clear because some reports were saying he may have, I think it was

ABC News that reported he may have been granted a special, special immigrant visa because of his work with the CIA. But that would have given him a green card and he wouldn't have needed to apply for asylum, which he did apply for in 2024. So the most likely answer here is that he was brought here on parole and then in 2024 applied for asylum and that was granted this past April. A grant of asylum essentially means that U.S. immigration officers or an immigration judge determines that the person has a well-founded fear of persecution in his home country and that his home country either cannot or will not protect him and therefore he can live in the United States indefinitely, he can work here legally, and then later he can apply for a green card and eventually apply for citizenship. So asylum creates this pathway to citizenship, and that's the biggest difference between asylum and parole. Asylum equates to full legal protection with a pathway to citizenship, or at least a green card, whereas parole is just temporary permission to be here. You are not

fully protected from removal. As of today, his motive for the shooting is still not clear. We know that he had been living in Bellingham, Washington, with his wife and their five sons who are all under the age of 12. They have lived there ever since they came here in 2021. There were some emails obtained by some news outlets, which illustrate that he was struggling to assimilate in the United States. So a community member who works with Afghan families in Washington State spoke on the condition of anonymity and shared emails that she had sent to the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, which is this nonprofit group that provide services to refugees. And in one of those emails, which was in January 2024, this community member

wrote in part, quote, Romanoola has not been functional as a person, father, and provider since March of last year, March of 2023. He quit his job that month and his behavior has changed greatly. End quote. The emails also stated that he was struggling to assume. He was unable to hold a steady job. He was unable to commit to his English courses and that he was switching between periods of dark isolation and reckless travel. The email said he would sometimes spend weeks in his dark room and not speak to anyone, including his wife and kids. And at one point in 2023, the family faced eviction because they hadn't paid rent in months. The community member said they had been worried that he was so depressed that he might end up harming himself, but that they never saw any signs that he would commit violence against another person. And when they found out about the shooting, they were shocked. This community member said that sometimes he would leave or his wife would leave the kids with him for a week to travel to visit relatives.

But during that time that the kids were left with him, the kids wouldn't be bathed. Their clothes wouldn't be changed and they wouldn't eat adequate meals to the point where the kid's school raised concerns about the situation. The emails also said, though, that there were times where he would try to, quote, do the right things, end quote, but that that has, quote, quickly evolved into manic episodes for one or two weeks at a time where he will take off in the family car and drive nonstop, end quote. One of those times he drove to Chicago, another time he drove to Arizona, and then, of course, most recently, he drove across the country to D.C. where he ultimately carried out the shooting. in response to those emails that I just talked about, the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants apparently visited Bellingham, Washington. This was in March 24, and attempted to make contact with him and his family. But the community member that sent these emails never received an update on the

situation. And the community member said that after not receiving any updates, they were just left with the impression that he had refused, you know, this nonprofit's assistance. And nothing ever came of it. Notably, despite these concerns being raised earlier, he was granted asylum, roughly a year after these concerns were raised. So it's not clear whether the federal government knew of these concerns and just simply overlooked them or whether it was just never alerted to the situation that we don't know. He is facing three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed, and one count of first-degree murder. The DOJ will seek the death penalty on that first degree murder charge. And according to

U.S. Attorney for D.C., Janine Piro, there are many more charges to come. So that's what we know about that situation. Let's take a break here. When we come back, we'll talk about Trump's pause on all asylum requests and more. Get no frills delivered. Shop the same in-store prices online and enjoy unlimited delivery with PC Express Pass. Get your first year for $2.50 a month. Learn more at p.c.express.ca. Welcome back. In the wake of the shooting of the two National Guardsmen, President Trump went ahead and directed the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or the U.S. CIS, to pause all asylum decisions. According to an internal notice and sources, asylum officers, Asylum Officers at USCIS, which is a branch of the DHS, were ordered to hold off on approving, denying, or closing asylum applications received by the agency.

The guidance said that officers could continue asylum application interviews and continue reviewing cases up to the point of making a decision, but, quote, once you've reached decision entry, stop and hold, end quote. as we discussed before the break, asylum cases are filed by immigrants who claim that they will suffer persecution if they are deported or returned to their home countries based on certain factors. That can be race, nationality, religion, political views. That is what asylum is. That is what it means to seek asylum. Now, this is a pause on asylum adjudications for all nationalities, which raises the question, can the executive branch temporarily halt asylum adjudications or asylum decisions? And there's two cases that we have to talk about here that are relevant. So one of those cases went before the Supreme Court. The other went before

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is one step down from the Supreme Court. They're both cases from 2018. In 2018, the Supreme Court said in a case called Trump v. Hawaii that the president has very broad power to suspend entry of non-citizens if their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. That lawsuit stemmed from Trump's presidential proclamation that restricted entry into the United States for nationals of several countries, most of which were Muslim majority. The policy was ultimately upheld in a five to four decision, and the majority held that the executive has wide discretion to regulate who gets admitted and that courts can defer to national security rationales even when it comes to sweeping policy and that the president

does not need to meet a strict evidentiary burden to justify a policy restricting admission. The court did not really evaluate the policy's rationale as much as it focused on the broad scope of presidential authority. So that was Trump versus Hawaii. But the underlying facts of Trump v. Hawaii differ from what's happening here. Trump versus Hawaii was about entry into the United States. What's happening now is a pause on asylum adjudications, asylum decisions. The people are already here.

They're just applying for asylum. So then we have to look at another 2018 case called East Bay Sanctuary versus Trump. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the president cannot override or nullify the asylum system because the asylum system was created by Congress. In that case, the Trump administration had tried to change the asylum system by issuing a rule that essentially said migrants who crossed the southern border illegally or between lawful ports of entry were ineligible for asylum. They could not seek asylum. That rule directly conflicted with the asylum statute that was passed by Congress.

That statute says that anyone physically present in the United States can apply for asylum no matter where or how they came in. So the Ninth Circuit ended up blocking the administration's rule and holding that. The administration cannot rewrite or override asylum laws through executive action. The court held that the president's broad authority to suspend entry under federal law does not allow policies that contradict Congress's. explicit asylum framework. Now, again, the underlying facts of that case are a little different too, right? Right now, the president is ordering a pause on asylum adjudications in the interest

of national security and for the purpose of implementing stricter vetting procedures. He's not changing the rules surrounding the asylum process like he was in East Bay Covenant. So if we analyze what's happening now under the precedent set by these two cases, the legality of this asylum pause depends on how big and how long it ends up being, right? If it's just temporary and it's meant to tighten betting, the administration could lean on Trump v. Hawaii, which gives presidents a lot of room to make immigration decisions when they claim national security is at stake. In that scenario, a court might see the pause as a short-term administrative move, not an attempt to change the asylum laws themselves, right? But if the pause direct,

on, or it applies broadly, or it looks more like an attempt to shut down asylum processing altogether, then East Bay Sanctuary covenant becomes the much more relevant case. And the Ninth Circuit was clear that the president cannot sidestep Congress and effectively shut off access to asylum. Granted, the Supreme Court never weighed in on East Bay Sanctuary, so it's possible the Supreme Court would rule differently if it eventually took up this issue. But all this to say that the longer and wider the pause is, the shakier it gets. Trump v. Hawaii helps justify the national security angle, but East Bay is a warning sign that an indefinite or sweeping pause may be struck down.

Another thing to mention here is that USCIS is now applying, quote, negative country-specific factors when vetting applicants from 19 specific countries. that had previously been designated as high risk in a June 2025 presidential proclamation. The USCIS announced a, quote, full-scale rigorous re-examination, end quote, of green cards for every holder from each of the 19 countries of concern. The federal government does have the authority to investigate individuals who pose security risks. It has the authority to reopen green card cases if there's evidence of fraud or misrepresentation. it also has the authority to denaturalize individuals who lied in their immigration applications if there's specific evidence of fraud. But what's shakier is whether the government can review

green card holders specifically because of their nationality, right? Specifically because they are from one of these 19 countries. In the past, courts have struck down policies that target people solely based on nationality once they're already in the United States because once someone comes, becomes a lawful permanent resident. They're entitled to, you know, constitutional due process protections and certain statutory protections. So if this policy were to be challenged, a court would almost certainly ask, is this policy based on individualized evidence or is it nationality profiling? And is USCIS following the statutory rescission process Congress created or is it creating its own rules? Based on past precedent, if this rule,

review is narrowly tailored and it's individualized. It's likely legal. It's likely fine. But if it's a mass nationality-based sweep, then there's a good chance it could be deemed unlawful. So that's what we're looking at there. Now, let's move on to a completely unrelated story. The state of Georgia has dismissed the election interference case against President Trump and his co-conspirators. What I want to do here is I just want to quickly explain what this case was about and then talk about why it was dismissed. So this investigation started after Trump lost the state of Georgia in the 2020 election. And the investigation focused on alleged efforts to interfere with Georgia's election administration and alleged attempt to overturn the results.

You probably remember hearing about one of the key events in the investigation, which was this phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger on January 2, 2021, in which Trump, Trump, hold Raffensberger on a recorded phone call, quote, all I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state, end quote. That one extra vote would have, of course, changed the outcome of Georgia's resulting given the state's electoral votes to Trump. Now, the question was, what did Trump mean by find votes, right? So The prosecutors argued that Trump was trying to interfere with the election results and rigged the election with fake votes, whereas the defense argued that Trump was essentially requesting a recount or an audit of the votes and asking officials to recheck the ballots, especially ballots he believed

he hadn't been properly counted. So it was all what did Trump mean when he said find the votes? That was one key event that was central to the prosecution. But nonetheless, in August 2023, a Fulton County grand jury indicted. Trump and 18 co-defendants on 41 counts related to Georgia's Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act, otherwise known as the RICO Act. Trump himself faced 13 charges, though two of those charges were dropped prior to trial. Now, Georgia has a law called RICO, which stands for the Racketeer influence and corrupt organizations act. Most people hear RICO and think of mafia movies or

big organized crime cases, but Georgia's version, is actually much broader than the federal law. And this is the easy way to think about it. RICO is a law that lets prosecutors charge a group of people together if they're all working toward a common illegal goal, even if each person only did a small part of it. Okay. So instead of charging everyone separately for individual crimes,

the state can say, hey, all these people are part of this larger scheme, and the scheme itself is a crime. under Georgia's RICO law, a scheme can be almost anything. It can be a formal organization. It can be a loose group of people or it can just be individuals working together towards the same illegal outcome. It doesn't have to be a gang or a mafia. And I know that's what most people think. Something as informal as a group text can qualify so long as the people involved in the group text are all working towards the same illegal goal. In Trump's case, the prosecutors argue that Trump and the other defense, refused to accept that Trump lost the election and that they knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump. That conspiracy, prosecutors argued, contained a common plan to commit two or more acts of racketeering activity. And by the way, the thing with Georgia's RICO law is that it's much more expansive than the federal

law. So Georgia's RICO law covers more types of crimes and makes it easier to show that people were acting together. But on Wednesday, the district attorney pro temporee, which is basically a temporary replacement prosecutor, filed what's called a no-lie prosecutor to dismiss the case. A no-le-prosecoy is a formal declaration to stop prosecuting a criminal case. So according to the filing, the case was dismissed to serve the interests of just. justice and promote judicial finality. In an accompanying memo, the district attorney pro temporee noted that there was no realistic way to compel a sitting president to stand trial in Georgia and that many alleged actions did not meet Georgia's legal standards for a racketeering conviction.

He also highlighted that the prosecuting attorney's counsel of Georgia lacked the resources to manage such a complex case and that removing Trump from his co-defendants would have created a fragmented years-long process with a likely futile and unproductive outcome. He also noted that some of the alleged criminal conduct took place in Washington, D.C., and not Georgia, which then complicates jurisdiction. And he concluded the memo by writing, quote, in my professional judgment, the citizens of Georgia are not served by pursuing this case in full for another five to ten years. End quote.

In response to that motion and that memo, a Fulton County Superior Court judge quickly granted the request and issued an order dismissing the case, which effectively just means the case is over, and it allows the criminal records associated with the arrest of the defendants to be restricted from public databases. Notably, the case's dismissal does have wider implications, considering there is a new Georgia law that allows defendants to request reimbursement from the state for their legal bills. Under that law, defendants have 45 days from the date of dismissal to file a claim seeking reimbursement for reasonable attorney's fees and costs. So while the exact total is unknown, the legal bills for Trump and the other defendants in

this case reportedly exceed $10 million. And if that's reimbursed by, you know, because of this new law, this would have to be paid with Georgia taxpayer dollars. But it's also important to note that if this case were able to proceed, if it was never dismissed, Georgia taxpayer dollars would have funded the prosecution, which could have cost even more than $10 million. And then finally, just one quick note, for those who pled guilty earlier in this case,

their guilty pleas are vacated and their conviction disappears. And that's because if the indictment is dismissed, a plea can't survive on its own. There's no underlying case for it to attach to. So their convictions disappear along with the rest of the prosecution. Okay, let's take our second break here. When we come back, we'll talk about some agency news. out of the FDA and EPA, and then we will finish the episode with critical thinking.

Welcome back. The FDA is reportedly planning to change its vaccine approval process. An internal memo written by the FDA's chief medical and scientific officer and the director of the vaccine division at the FDA, Vinay Prasad, was circulated internally on Friday. And the memo is lengthy, so I will be summarizing it. But I do also want you to keep in mind that memo has not been publicly released. So the memo that I have obtained has not been officially authenticated, but the text of the memo that I've obtained does align with reporting from other outlets, which leads me to believe it is accurate. So the letter basically starts by addressing the Center for Biologics evaluation and research and says that the Office of

Biostatistics and pharmacovigilance has found that at least 10 children have, have died after and because of receiving the COVID vaccine. The memo says that the deaths are either likely, probably, or possibly attributed to vaccination and that the number of 10 is an underestimate due to underreporting and inherent bias in attribution. The letter then goes on to say that in the summer of this year, the senior advisor Tracy Hogue began investigating reports of children who had died after. administration of the COVID vaccine.

And by late summer, she concluded that there were deaths. She then organized a meeting to discuss the deaths with the Office of Vaccines Research and Review, as well as the Office of Biostatistics and Pharmacovigilance at the FDA. And the Office of Vaccines Research and Review disagreed with her assessment that the deaths were due to receipt of the vaccine. and they felt that she was attempting to create false fear around vaccines. So Prasad then asked the, and this is all laid out in the memo, by the way, Prasad then asked the Office of Biostatistics and Pharmacovigilance to perform an analysis

of the deaths that had been voluntarily reported to the vaccine adverse event reporting system. To date, the OBPV has performed. an initial analysis of 96 deaths between 2021 and 24, and has concluded that no fewer than 10 are related to the vaccine. The memo reads, quote, this is a profound revelation for the first time the U.S. FDA will acknowledge that COVID-19 vaccines have killed American children, end quote. The memo seems to imply that these deaths were due to myocarditis mainly, which is inflammation of the part, but that implication is not made explicitly clear. The memo does talk about myocarditis and like I said, does imply that that, you know, that was the cause of these deaths as a result of

the vaccination, but it doesn't necessarily make that conclusion explicitly clear. The letter was not accompanied by any hard data, okay? And as I said before, this letter has not been publicly released. So the public, including myself, does not have access to any of the data that is referenced in this letter, and therefore there is no way to verify the accuracy of these claims. The memo also did not provide details about things like the children's ages, whether they had any underlying health conditions, how many deaths were due to the virus itself, how the agency determined the vaccine death link, or which vaccine manufacturers were involved. So there's still a lot of unknown and a lot that we do not have the answers to. The best I can do is just tell you

what this memo claims, but again, we don't have the data that's supposedly the source of the claims in this memo. The portion of the memo that has a lot of people talking, though, is the last part where Prasad discusses changes to the vaccine approval process. And he writes in part, quote, I have no doubt that many vaccines have saved millions of lives globally. and many have benefits that far exceed risks, but vaccines are like any other medical product. The right drug given to the right patient at the right time is great, but the same drug can be inappropriately given causing harm. The same is true for vaccines. I want to outline a path forward. Our general approach in Sieber will be to direct vaccine regulation

towards evidence-based medicine. This means we will take swift action regarding this new safety concern, we will not be granting marketing authorization to vaccines and pregnant women based on unproven surrogate endpoints. Any prior promises will be null and void. And we will demand pre-market randomized trials assessing clinical endpoints for most products. N pneumonia vaccine makers will have to show their products reduce pneumonia, at least in the post-market setting, and not merely generate antibody titers. Immunogenicity will no longer be used to expand indicated populations. These population should be included in pre-market RCTs. We will revise the annual flu vaccine framework, which is an evidence-based catastrophe of low-quality evidence, poor surrogate

assays, and uncertain vaccine effectiveness measured in case control studies with poor methods. We will reappraise safety and be honest in vaccine labels. The FDA's standard has been to require randomized studies too small to draw any conclusions from creating a false sense of efficacy, and safety, end quote. The memo then goes on to say that the Office of Vaccines Research and Review, as well as the Office of Biostatistics and Pharmacovigilance staff, will be tasked with writing guidelines to reflect these changes and that vaccines will be treated like all other medication classes. So that is the extent of what we know as far as the reported proposed changes to the vaccine

approval process. Now, keep in mind that the FDA cannot simply change vaccine approval. standards overnight or based on a memo. Okay. So any major shift has to go through formal procedures, regulatory procedures, scientific review, often some legal steps as well. Now, different types of changes require different levels of authority. Some changes are easier to implement than others. So for example, refusing to grant authorization in pregnant women based on surrogate endpoints would likely require rulemaking under federal law, updated guidance for pregnancies, specific approvals, new evidentiary standards, potentially even involvement from Congress if

statutory definitions are being reinterpreted. The FDA does have authority to tighten standards, but a change like this would be a formal and possibly lengthy regulatory process. The same applies to requiring pneumonia vaccines to show actual reduction in pneumonia cases rather than relying on antibody titers. That type of change would almost certainly require a similar regulatory overhaul. Requiring pre-market randomized trials with clinical endpoints for most vaccines is a much larger change. So it likely couldn't be implemented internally or unilaterally by the FDA. This is the kind of shift that might require formal rulemaking and could even require congressional approval. Similarly, eliminating immunogenicity as a basis for expanding vaccine indicators would

fundamentally alter how vaccines are approved today and would require administrator procedure rulemaking and extensive scientific justification. Now, on the other hand, reappraising safety and updating vaccine labels is much more straightforward legally. The FDA can update labels at any time if new data emerges, if safety signals warrant changes, if, you know, risk benefit profiles change. So all of this to say, some of these proposed changes would be far easier to implement than others and some would take much less time than others. Some could be done internally, while others would require a formal federal rulemaking process or possibly action from Congress. Let's move on to the EPA, another agency action. So within the last month, the EPA approved two new pesticide ingredients

for use on golf courses, institutional settings, lawns, and a variety of crops. And many of you have questions, so let's talk about it. In early November, the EPA approved the use of an ingredient called cyclobutreflorum, and two weeks before that, it approved isocyclocerum. Now, the reason people are talking about these approvals is because these chemicals meet certain definitions of PFAs, which stands for per and polyfluorical substances. PFAs are also known as forever chemicals, because many of them linger in the environment. for a very long time without ever breaking down. And some also remain in the human body for years.

In fact, a 2020 study in the journal of the National Cancer Institute found that PFAs are present in the blood serum of 98% of Americans tested. The reason PFAs are bad is because they can cause a variety of health conditions. PFAs have been linked by the EPA itself as well as other agencies to several health risks, including decreased fertility, hypertension and pregnant women, certain cancers, especially kidney cancers, developmental delays in children, hormonal irregularities, elevated cholesterol, reduced effectiveness of the immune system, and many more. It's not known exactly how many pesticide active ingredients are PFAs, but a 2024 peer-reviewed

study found that 14% of all U.S. pesticide active ingredients are PFAs, including nearly one-third of the active ingredients that have been approved in the past 10 years. However, it is also important to note that not all of those PFAs are persistent PFAs, meaning some degrade quickly, others are persistent, and last for a very long time. Under the Biden administration, the EPA approved one pesticide containing PFAs, which is a chemical known as flusine dolazine, if I'm saying that properly, It was clear to be used on certain crops like carrots, squash, tomatoes, eggplants, almonds, grapes, some others. These new approvals from the last month are similarly allowed to be used on crops like cereal grains, oranges, almonds, tomatoes, soybeans, peas, and others.

Now, the current EPA administrator has come out and disputed that one of the newly approved chemicals is a PFA's. And the debate comes down to different definitions of what counts as PFAs. So back in 2003, the Biden administration finalized a rule under a program called TRI, which requires certain industries to report releases of specific toxic chemicals. In that rulemaking, the EPA defined PFAs specifically for the purpose of TRI reporting. And that definition classifies PFAs, as chemicals containing at least two saturated, fully fluorinated carbons. That definition also specifically excludes single fluorinated compounds. Now, this definition is different than the definition used by the EU,

as well as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, both of which define PFAs as chemicals containing at least one saturated, fully fluorinated carbon. So under the TRI definition, both of these newly approved chemicals are not considered reportable PFAs, but under the EU's definition, both would qualify. And importantly, so here's the thing. The EPA does not use one single definition of PFAs across the entire industry. For this particular issue, the definition that really matters is the one used by the EPA's pesticide division.

And in the pesticide world, a chemical is considered PFA's like, if it has even one fully fluorinated carbon atom. That's the definition that applies to these new approvals. So under that definition, which is, of course, the most relevant definition, both of these two newly approved chemicals are considered PFAs. Now, one last thing I want to make a note of is this. When the media says PFA's pesticides, it sounds like the entire pesticide product is PFA's. That's not the case.

It's the active ingredient inside the pesticide that may contain a PFA's like chemical structure. The product itself is not PFAs, but one of the chemicals inside of it might be, depending on which definition you use, and it's two new chemicals that were approved by the EPA that meet the definition of PFAs. So hopefully that clears things up a bit. Okay, now it's time for critical thinking. For those that are new here, this segment is not meant to be too complex. complex. It's not meant to stump you. It's just to get you thinking about why you feel the way you do about

certain issues and potentially even give you a place to challenge your own opinions. For today's segment, let's revisit the pause on asylum applications. For those who support the pause, if national security is the reason for pausing asylum decisions, does leaving thousands of cases unresolved for potentially a long period of time actually make the country safer, or could it increase risks by delaying the very vetting that the government says is necessary? For those who are against the pause, if some number of asylum applicants, whether small or large, are later found to have dangerous affiliations, is it still your view that it's unreasonable for the government to temporarily strengthen vetting procedures and pause asylum adjudications while doing so and why

or why not. And then this is a question for everyone regardless of where you stand. If both national security and humanitarian protection are core American values, what does a balanced asylum system actually look like in practice? And what tradeoffs are you willing to accept to uphold both of those core values. That's what I have for you today. There are a few stories that I was not able to get to, so I will be covering them in Thursday's episode. Those include the congressional inquiry into Hegg Seth's alleged strike order, President Trump voiding Biden's auto pen orders, and then also the White House's new media bias webpage. So stay tuned for Thursday's episode because I'll have those stories there. Have a great next couple of days. And I will talk to you again on Thursday.

You know,