UNBIASED - December 4, 2025: The Truth About Somalis in Minnesota, What We Know About Hegseth's Authorization a Follow-Up Strike, Trump Voids Biden's Autopen Actions, and More.

Episode Date: December 4, 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 Follow-Up Strike on the Alleged Drug Boat in the Caribbean (1:12) Trump Threatens to Void All Biden Actions Signed With Autopen, But Can He? (13:42) ICE to Target Somali Migrants in Minnesota Amid Accusations of Fraud; Here's What We Know (~21:27) White House Launches New 'Media Bias' Webpage (~44:13) Quick Hitters: Dell Family Donates $6.25B to Trump Accounts, New DoD Inspector General Report on Hegseth's Signal Chat, Trump Pardons Democratic Representative (~47:29) Rumor Has It: Did the DOJ Spend Nearly $1M in Overtime Pay for Agents to Redact Epstein Files? Does Kamala Harris Want the Voting Age Lowered to 16? (~50:02) Critical Thinking Segment (~53:01) 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

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, December 4th. Let's talk about some news. If you're watching on YouTube, you will notice this is an audio-only episode. I did have to record this episode Wednesday night. So it is pre-recorded. Just note that as we go through, if there's any news that developed between Wednesday night and Thursday morning, obviously it's not included in this episode, but everything should be pretty, you know, up to date and current. At the end of Monday's episode, I mentioned that there were a few stories I didn't get a chance to cover in Monday's episode, but that I would be covering today. Those include the inquiry into the Venezuelan

boat strike, Trump saying that he would be voiding all of Biden's actions that were signed via auto pen and the White House's new media bias page. So let's start this episode. with the boat strike and then we'll eventually get into everything else, including what is going on with the claims against Somalis in Minnesota, which will actually take up a pretty big chunk of today's episode. So as we know, since September, the administration has been launching strikes against boats in the Caribbean and off the Pacific coast of Colombia in what it says is an attempt to combat illicit drug trafficking. In total, the United States military has launched strikes against 22 boats, killing 83 people. But the very first strike on September 2nd is what everyone is talking

about right now. And that's because the Washington Post recently reported that Defense Secretary Hegeseth, after ordering the initial strike on the boat, issued a second order to kill the two survivors who were clinging to the wreckage of the boat. Now, what I want to do here is I want to kind of provide a quick recap of the events that have unfolded since the Washington Post report, and then at the end, I will answer questions about legality. So the day after the Washington Post published its report, which would have been Friday, November 28th, the day after Thanksgiving, Hegeseth came out and said that the report

was quote unquote fake news and that the strike was, quote, lawful under both U.S. and international law, end quote. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle then proceeded to launch this investigation into the legality of the strikes and whether Hegsef did in fact order a second follow-up strike. And in a joint statement on Saturday, November 29, senators on the committee on armed services wrote, quote, the committee is aware of recent news reports and the Department of Defense's initial response regarding alleged follow-on strikes on suspected narcotics vessels in the Southcom area of responsibility, end quote. That statement went on to say, quote, the committee has

directed inquiries to the department and we will be conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to the circumstances, end quote. Then the following day on Sunday, November 30th, while speaking to the press aboard Air Force 1, President Trump was asked, quote, can you tell us a little bit about the strikes and the controversy surrounding Defense Secretary Pete Heggseth? And the president replied, quote, I don't know anything about that. He said he did not say that and I believe him. end quote. The reporter then asked about the second strike and the president said, quote, yeah, he said he didn't do it. He said he never said that. And quote, another reporter then asked the president, would you be okay with that if he did? Meaning if he ordered that second strike. And the president said, quote, he said he didn't do it so I don't have to make that decision. And quote, the president then continued to answer similar questions with similar responses. And at one point, the president said that the administration would continue,

looking into this, but a second strike isn't something that he would have wanted. Trump was also asked whether there was a second strike, and the president said he didn't know, but that he would find out about it. Then the following day on Monday, December 1st, press secretary Caroline Levitt was asked during a press briefing whether the administration denies that a second strike happened or that it happened and the administration denies that heggseth gave the order. Leavitt responded that the latter was true and then proceeded to read the following statement. Quote, President Trump and Secretary Hegeseth have made it clear that presidentially designated

narco-terrorist groups are subject to lethal targeting in accordance with the laws of war. With respect to the strikes in question on September 2nd, Secretary Hegeseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes. Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated. And quote, later that same day, Heggseth posted on X in part, quote, Admiral Mitch Brady is an American hero, a true professional and has my 100% support. I stand by him and the combat decisions he has made on the September 2nd mission and all others

since. End quote. So just to provide a little more context here, Admiral Bradley is currently the head of U.S. Special Operations Command. He was appointed for the role in June, but he wasn't officially promoted to the role until October, which is actually after the strike occurred. Prior to his promotion, he served as the head of Joint Special Operations Command, which he took charge of in 2022 under Biden. Now, I do quickly want to mention that on Monday night, so the night of Levitt's press briefing, where she acknowledged a second strike, ABC News reported that Levitt said Trump ordered, quote, everyone be killed, end quote, aboard the boat. No other news outlet has reported this, and that reporting is actually at odds with public statements that have been made,

by both Levitt and Trump, who maintained that the, you know, quote unquote, kill everyone order was not made at all. So it's unclear where ABC got that information from, but I just wanted to mention it in case you saw it because it has not been corroborated by any other outlet or any other source. So then on Tuesday, Republican Senator Rand Paul comes out and accuses Hegset of either lying or being incompetent. He said, quote, Secretary Hegset said he had no knowledge of this and it didn't happen. It was fake news. It didn't happen. And then the next day, from the podium at the White House, they are saying it did happen. So either he was lying to us or he's incompetent and didn't know it had happened. End quote. He added, quote, do we think there's any chance that the

Secretary of Defense did not know there had been a second strike? So as a country, we're just going to let people lie to us to our face. End quote. Now, Senator Paul noted that he was specifically referring, like in making those remarks, he was specifically referring to Heggseth's Friday ex post in which Hegeseth had called the Washington Post report fake news. Just to be clear, Hegset never, to this day, hasn't explicitly denied that a follow-up strike occurred. It could be implied from his initial comments about the Washington Post article, but he never explicitly denied it.

However, also on Tuesday, the president said that neither he nor Hegeseth, knew about the follow-up strike. So it's definitely confusing and there have been a lot of comments made. So what I want to do is actually recap all of the comments thus far and put it succinctly so that we're all on the same page. Basically, Heggseth called the Washington Post report fake news and has also said that there was a second strike ordered by Admiral Bradley. Trump has said that Hegeseth says he didn't do it, he didn't do it himself, and that neither he nor Hegseth knew about the second strike. And then press secretary Leavitt confirmed that there was a second strike and said the second strike was authorized by Heg Seth, but that the orders to carry out

the second strike were given by Admiral Bradley. So that is where the comments stand as of now. yesterday, so Wednesday, a U.S. military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the military actually struck the alleged drug trafficking boat on September 2nd, four times, not twice, but four times. The Pentagon was asked for further comment, but as of now, has not provided any additional information. So that brings us to today. As of now, the investigation is being conducted by the Senate Committee on Armed Forces and it is ongoing. It's also unclear when its findings will be announced and publicized. But we do know that Admiral Bradley is briefing senior members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committee today, Thursday, about his role

in the strikes. Perhaps we'll learn more once the committees are briefed. Now, let's talk about the legality of all of this. A lot of you want to know whether these strikes are lawful. So first we'll discuss the strikes as a whole, and then we'll talk about this one specific instance where multiple strikes were ordered. Per the war powers resolution, which is a federal law, the president in his capacity as commander-in-chief, may only introduce United States armed forces into hostilities, so send them into combat under at least one of three conditions. Number one, a declaration of war by Congress. Two, specific statutory authorization by Congress, a.k.a. a law allowing for it. Or three, a national emergency created by attack on the United

States. Now, obviously, Congress has not declared war, and there doesn't seem to be any sort of statutory authorization or law that would allow these specific strikes, right? The third condition is where the gray area lies because, first of all, the war powers resolution doesn't define what a national emergency is or what constitutes an attack. However, we know that the president has consistently maintained that these alleged drug boats are killing Americans by bringing drugs into the United States. And we also know that in June, Trump declared a national emergency to address the flow of illegal drugs across the border. So there are a few questions that present themselves here. Number one, are these boats carrying drugs? Number two, if they are, if they are bringing

drugs into the United States, does that constitute an attack on the United States for purposes of the war powers resolution? If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then the strikes might be legal. However, if the answer to those questions, if the answer to either of those questions is no, the strikes might not be legal. And the ongoing Senate investigation will help answer these questions, with the main question being whether drug trafficking is considered an attack. Now, to discuss the legality of the second strike, okay, the follow-up strike that killed the two survivors, the most relevant law is the War Crimes Act, which incorporates into U.S. law the grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, the post-World War II humanitarian rules adopted by nearly every country.

to modernize the laws of war. Among other things, the conventions make it a war crime to intentionally kill people who are not or are no longer participating in combat. This includes, but is not limited to, all civilians, the detained, the wounded, and the shipwrecked. Okay, that's the language. That's included there. So in this case, the key question is whether the two shipwrecked, right, quote unquote shipwrecked individuals in the September 2nd incident were still directly participating in hostilities so as to warrant the additional strike, right? Some could argue that if they were, let's say, actively communicating with allied forces to coordinate the retrieval of the alleged drugs aboard the boat, that could be considered

continued participation in combat and therefore justify a follow-up strike. Others, though, could argue that once these two were shipwrecked, once their boat was destroyed, they were protected under international law. So ultimately, the congressional investigation and potentially even the courts will have to determine whether the boaters' actions met the legal threshold for direct participation in hostilities. So that's the deal with that. That's sort of the legal analysis there. I'm sure more will develop here. but that is what we know at this point. Now I want to switch gears and move on to President Trump's comments about voiding Biden's

actions that were signed by Autopen. We'll keep this discussion relatively short. So last Friday, Trump posted a true social quote, any documents signed by Sleepy Joe Biden with the Autopen, which was approximately 92% of them, is hereby terminated and of no further force or effect. The Autopin is not allowed to be used if approval is not specifically given by the president of the United States. The radical left lunatics circling Biden around the beautiful resolute desk in the Oval Office took the presidency away from him. I am here by canceling all

executive orders and anything else that was not directly signed by Crooked Joe Biden because the people who operated the autopen did so illegally. End quote. We have talked about the auto pen allegations many times over the last year or so. But most recently in October, many of you may remember, because we talked about this too, the House Oversight Committee released its findings following a months-long investigation into the cognitive decline and autopen usage of President Biden during his presidency. And the committee, which is led mainly by Republican lawmakers, claimed that many executive actions under Biden were enacted without his knowledge or while he was incapable of properly judging them due to his cognitive decline.

The Democrats on the committee, though, said there was no credible evidence that Biden lacked capacity or that there was any wrongdoing. They argue that the entire auto pen scandal has been, quote, unquote, manufactured and that the entire investigation was a sham. So keep in mind, as we go through this, too, that the use of the auto pen in and of itself is not unlawful. It is, in fact, very legal. What is unlawful is if an auto pen is used without the president's explicit knowledge and approval. And that is what the House Oversight Committee and President Trump claim to be the case. So can Trump void all of Biden's actions that were signed with an auto pen?

Yes and no. Okay. So any president can overturn or suspend any executive order issued by a past president or past president on the basis of disagreement, which is a pretty low bar. executive orders were specifically designed to be this quick and easy way of enacting new policy, and thus each administration can just as easily reverse past executive orders should they be incompatible with current policy views or circumstances. Now, whether Trump can just go ahead and broadly overturn any and all executive orders just because they were signed by Autopen remains to be

seen but is likely not possible. And also keep in mind to repeal an executive order, president has to issue a new executive order explicitly rescinding or replacing the previous one. So if Trump were to sign an executive order that basically said, I'm reversing all of Biden's executive orders that were signed with an auto pen, that executive order would likely be challenged in the courts and would probably be struck down. And that's because it's, the use of the auto pen is not a proper legal justification. Unless Trump could prove that Biden did not authorize those orders, the signature method is irrelevant. And so far, there's no hard proof that Biden didn't authorize the orders.

So to be clear, a president can revoke a previous president's executive orders, but not because of the auto pen. Autopin signatures are legally valid. There is no mechanism in federal law to void executive actions solely based on the method used to sign them. Now, Trump also said in his post that he would cancel anything else that wasn't directly signed by Biden. presumably he's referring to laws and pardons right laws cannot be overturned without a new bill being signed into law to replace it which typically takes a majority in the house and senate right so

trump can't just overturn laws simply by declaring them void he would need congress to pass a new bill that repeals the old bill pardons cannot be overturned at all pardons are constitutionally final and no future president can undo them now again Again, if there was hard proof that Biden did not authorize the signing of the pardons, that would be something for the courts to decide and look at. But a president cannot just simply undo pardons issued by past presidents, regardless of how they were signed. So hopefully that answered your questions there. Let's take our first break here.

When we come back, we'll spend a good amount of time talking about what's going on with Somalis in Minnesota. 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 four 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.combs and conditions apply. Welcome back. Over the past couple of weeks, Minnesota's Somali community has been in the spotlight following some statements from President Trump, some allegations of fraud in social service programs, and reports of a planned ice operation, specifically targeting Somali immigrants in the Twin Cities area. Because the story has so many layers, I want to do kind of what I did with the boat strike story and provide a little bit of background.

then I'll lay out the sequence of events over the last couple of weeks, and then at the end, I'll answer your questions. So first, there are a few key things to know here. Minnesota is home to the largest Somali population in the United States. Many members of the Somali immigrant community began migrating to Minnesota in the mid-90s when they were fleeing the onset of a civil war and instability in Somalia following the collapse of Somalia's central government. Today, it's estimated that around 80,000 Somali immigrants live in Minnesota.

Now, you might be wondering why Minnesota, of all places. Initially, a lot of Somali migrants chose Minnesota because it had and has some of the country's most active refugee resettlement organizations, and those organizations come with, you know, solid social service infrastructure, housing programs, employment assistance, partnerships with state and local governments, benefits, or things that are seen as benefits by immigrants and people who are resettling. This alone made Minnesota a destination place for Somali migrants at the time. Then after that initial resettlement wave, a lot of the Somali refugees living in other states ended up moving to Minnesota because they had family in Minnesota,

because there were Somali language schools, mosques, and businesses. There was also a stronger support network, the cost of living was lower than in coastal cities, of course, and employment opportunities were a bit more stable. This is called secondary migration. That's second wave. So by the early 2000s, Minnesota had the largest and most established Somali community in the country, which then continued to attract new arrivals. Nationally speaking, though, about 73% of Somali immigrants are naturalized U.S. citizens. That's according to the Census Bureau. Now we have to talk about TPS or temporary protected status. TPS is a federal program that allows people from countries that are experiencing armed conflict and natural disasters or other dangerous conditions to come

and live in work in the United States legally and temporarily. Somalia has been designated for TPS since 1991. So TPS allows holders to remain in the United States and protects them from removal during the period in which they have TPS. But it does not grant permanent residency or citizenship. TPS holders also cannot be detained by DHS on the basis of immigration status. They are protected. So ICE can't target a TPS holder for deportation simply because they're from a particular country, in this case, Somalia. Keep in mind, too, though, that a TPS holder can lose protection if they commit certain crimes, if they violate certain immigration laws, if DHS withdraws their TPS because they become ineligible, or if TPS designation for their country ends.

So last month, President Trump announced on Truth Social that he was ending the temporary protected status specifically for Somalis in Minnesota. And at the same time, in that same post, he accused Minnesota's governor Tim Walls of managing a state full of fraudulent money laundering. So in that post, Trump wrote, quote, Minnesota under Governor Walls is a hub of fraudulent money laundering activity. I am as president of the United States hereby terminating effective immediately the temporary protected status for Somalis in Minnesota. Somali gangs are terrorizing the people of that great state and billions of dollars are missing. Send them back to where they came from. It's over. End quote. In response to that post, Governor Walls posted on

X, quote, it's not surprising that the president has chosen to broadly target an entire community. This is what he does to change the subject. Minnesota Democratic representative Ilhan Omar also responded to Trump on X writing, quote, I am a citizen and so are the majority of Somalis in America. Good luck celebrating a policy change that really doesn't have much impact on the Somalis you love to hate. We are here to stay. End quote. So then about a week later on Thanksgiving, Trump posted again to true social, reiterating this earlier claim of fraud and criticizing Governor Walls for what he described as a lack of action. So Trump wrote in part, quote, a very happy Thanksgiving salutation to all of our great American citizens and patriots

who have been so nice in allowing our country to be divided, disrupted, carved up, murdered, beaten, mugged, and laughed at, along with certain other foolish countries throughout the world for being politically correct and just plain stupid when it comes to immigration. The official United States foreign population stands at 53 million people, most of which are on welfare, from failed nations, or from prisons, mental institutions, gangs, and drug cartels. As an example, hundreds of thousands of refugees from Somalia are completely taking over the once great state of Minnesota. Somalian gangs are roving the streets looking for quote unquote prey as our wonderful people stay locked in their apartments and houses, hoping against hope that they will be

left alone. The seriously retarded governor of Minnesota, Tim Walls, does nothing, either through fear, incompetence, or both, while the worst congressman slash woman in our country, Ilhan Omar, always wrapped in her swaddling hijab, and who probably came into the United States illegally, in that you are not allowed to marry your brother, does nothing but hatefully complain about our country. its Constitution and how badly she is treated when her place of origin is a decadent, backward, and crime-ridden nation, which is essentially not even a country for lack of government, military, police, schools, etc., end quote. Okay, so that was on Thanksgiving. Then on Sunday, Governor Walls went on NBC's Meet the Press and responded to Trump's Thanksgiving post saying,

quote, look, Donald Trump insulting me as a badge of honor, but I think we all know both as an educator for a couple decades and as a parent, using that term is just so damaging. It's hurtful. We have fought for decades to get this out of our schools. Kids know better than to use it. But look, this is what Donald Trump has done. He's normalized this type of hateful behavior and this type of language. End quote. Then on Monday, the Treasury Department announces that it is investigating claims that Minnesotans taxpayer dollars may have been misused to support a terrorist group. So U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott percent posts on X. quote, at my direction, the U.S. Treasury is investigating allegations that under the reckless mismanagement of the Biden administration and Governor Tim Walls, hardworking Minnesotans' tax dollars may have been diverted to the terrorist organization Al-Shabab. Thanks to the leadership of the President of the United States, we are acting fast to ensure Americans' taxes are not funding acts of global terror. We will share our findings as our investigation continues. end quote. That post by Bessent was accompanied by a link to an article from

City Journal. That article essentially claims that over recent years, Minnesota's social service and welfare programs have been subject to massive fraud and specifically the Housing Stabilization Services Program. The article claims that payouts under the Housing Stabilization Services Program, or HSS, have exploded rapidly and that federal prosecutors have already indicted eight individuals specifically tied to HSS fraud, six of whom are reportedly members of Minnesota's Somali community. So the same day that the Treasury Department announced its investigation, the White House posts an article titled, yes, there's something wrong with walls and it cost taxpayers $1 billion. That article discusses Trump's earlier claims that Minnesota has become a state

full of fraudulent money laundering and how that money laundering relates to Somali refugees. So the article reads in part, quote, nowhere is that more evident than the shocking fraud scandal that took place under the incompetence of deeply disturbed Democrat governor Tim Walls, in which 78 of the 86 individuals charged so far are of Somali ancestry. And quote, according to the article, quote, dozens of individuals largely of East African descent, looted taxpayers out of over $1 billion that was intended for child food assistance in what amounted to the country's largest pandemic relief fraud scheme." End quote. The article also alleges that the fraud involved a complex network of nonprofits largely tied to the Somali community, which submitted, allegedly

submitted claims for services for non-existent children and other beneficiaries. The page also notes that the Trump administration is responding to these fraud allegations by ending temporary protected status for Somalis and reviewing broader immigration policies as well. And that's referring to Trump's earlier announcement, pausing migration from third world countries, reexamining green cards, and pausing asylum decisions. Then, most recently on Tuesday, it was reported that ICE is preparing for an operation targeting Somali immigrants in Minnesota. That report came from the New York Times, which cited documents that are reviewed as well as an official with knowledge of the operation. And the report said that the Trump administration is planning an immigration enforcement operation

targeting undocumented Somali immigrants in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. And that the operation will focus mainly on Somalis that have final deportation orders who are living in the Twin Cities area. And the plan reportedly calls for the deployment of strike teams. which are made up of ICE officers, agents, as well as other federal officials. Roughly 100 officers and agents from around the country have been brought in for this operation, per the official who spoke with the New York Times. In response to that New York Times report, Governor Walls posted on X, quote,

we welcome support in investigating and prosecuting crime, but pulling a PR stunt and indiscriminately targeting immigrants is not a real solution to the problem. And quote, leaders of the Twin Cities also held a news conference in response to this reported ICE operation, saying they had not received advance notice of the operation. Trump in a cabinet meeting on Tuesday doubled down on his comments about Somali immigrants saying he doesn't want them in the United States. He said, quote, Somalians ripped off that state for billions of dollars, billions every year, billions of dollars and they contribute nothing. The welfare is like 88 percent. They contribute nothing. I don't want them in our country.

I'll be honest with you, okay? Somebody would say, oh, that's not politically correct. I don't care. I don't want them in our country. Their country is no good for a reason. The country stinks, and we don't want them in our country. I could say that about other countries, too. I can say it about other countries, too.

We don't want them to help. We have to rebuild our country. You know, our country is at a tipping point. We could go bad. We're at a tipping point. I don't know if people mind me saying that, but I'm saying that we could go one way or the other, and we're going to go the wrong way if we keep taking in garbage into our country. Ilhan Omar is garbage. She's garbage. Her friends are garbage.

Those aren't people that work. These aren't people that say, let's go, come on, let's make this place great. These are people that do nothing but complain. They complain. And from where they came from, they got nothing. You know, they came from paradise. And they said, this isn't paradise. But when they come from hell and they complain and do nothing but bitch, we don't want them in our country. Let them go back to where they came from and fix it. End quote. So, That is where things stand as of now. Okay, that's the sequence of events that have taken place over the last couple of weeks. Now, we can get to your questions.

So the first question is, can Trump legally revoke temporary protected status for Somalis in Minnesota? The short answer is that President Trump himself cannot, but the DHS secretary can. So the Immigration and National Nationality Act gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to designate a foreign country for TPS, extend TPS, to TPS or terminate TPS designation. But any changes to TPS, including terminations, have to follow federal procedures and they have to be legally justified. So the president can't unilaterally terminate TPS for Somalis in Minnesota. He can propose ending or redesignating TPS for a country, but the actual action of doing so would have to be done through the DHS secretary and it would have to follow administrative procedures. Those procedures include publishing a notice in the

Federal Register providing at least 60 days advance notice, demonstrating that the conditions for TPS no longer exist for that country, and issuing a reasoned explanation that complies with federal administrative law. Now, also keep in mind that even if DHS provides the 60 days advance notice, the termination of TPS could still be challenged in court, and courts do have the ability to block or delay TPS terminations if the DHS's reasoning is insufficient or if proper procedures were not followed. And we've seen this in past cases involving TPS for El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua. Also, TPS applies to nationals of a country, okay, not residents of a specific state. So there is no lawful mechanism to end TPS only for Somalis living in Minnesota while

leaving TPS in place for Somalis elsewhere. Any attempt to terminate Somalia's TPS would have to apply nationwide. And by the way, just as a sort of side note, but relevant, Somalia's TPS designation is already set to expire in March of 2026, so March of this coming year, unless of course DHS decides to extend the designation, which it doesn't look like that's going to happen. Okay. What I want to do here is I want to take our second break. When we come back, I will answer the rest of your questions, like, you know, how much truth is there to these fraud claims? Can ICE legally target Somalis in Minnesota? There's still a few questions to get to. So we're going to take a break here. When we come back, we'll get to the rest of the questions.

Welcome back. Continuing on with the Somali Q&A. Can ICE legally target Somalis in Minnesota? Yes and no. So ICE definitely has the authority to arrest and detain non-citizens who are removable under federal law, particularly those with final orders of removal. Okay, those people can be deported. However, the ICE cannot legally conduct enforcement actions based solely on national origin. Okay. There was a recent Supreme Court ruling in a case called Nome versus Vasquez Pardomo, which allows ICE to use certain profiling-based tactics, but that ruling did not legalize

blanket nationality based sweeps. So targeting people simply because they are Somali would almost certainly face constitutional and statutory challenges under not only the Fourth Amendment, but also the 14th Amendment, as well as federal civil rights laws. Plus, people with TPS are specifically protected from removal based on their immigration status. So ICE cannot lawfully target people with TPS simply because they are Somali. Now, if their TPS ends, which as we said, requires at least 60 days notice, then ICE could arrest and detain those individuals because they would no longer have the authorization to be here. But as things stand today, ICE can arrest and detain Somalis who are removable under federal law, meaning they do not have a legal

basis to be here. But ICE cannot arrest and detain Somalis who have TPS or are otherwise lawful residents or citizens. Next question. How true are Trump's claims about fraud in Minnesota? Well, it is true that Minnesota has seen major fraud scandals involving social service and aid programs most prominently the feeding our future investigation. So feeding our future was a nonprofit that during the pandemic partnered with a lot of local businesses as these quote unquote feeding sites under a federally funded child nutrition program. And in 2022, federal prosecutors began bringing charges against the people that were running feeding our future alleging that many of the reported meals actually never existed and that the funds that

were meant to feed children were misappropriated for things like luxury cars, houses, international real estate projects, etc. As of this year, 77 people have been charged or convicted with accusations including conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering, and bribery, all related to that scheme. Official records indicate that at least 48 of those defendants have either pled guilty or they've been convicted. They've been found guilty. Additional federal charges have been filed in related cases, including alleged fraud in housing stabilization programs in Minnesota, as well as autism therapy programs in Minnesota. And among the 86 people charged across these investigations, 77 of those people are reported

to be of Somali ancestry. However, Somali ancestry does not mean, you know, they're here illegally from Somalia. The vast majority of those people, yes, are of Somali ancestors. but the vast majority are also U.S. citizens, either by birth or naturalization. So while the scale of these scandals is obviously significant and the convictions and charges are very much real, like this stuff is happening. Some of the claims that are circulating in the media and political commentary haven't been fully verified. So for example, the frequently cited figure of more than a billion dollars in taxpayer money has been stolen, that hasn't been confirmed in

official documents. The proven losses in the feeding our future case alone, though, are in the range of $240 to $250 million. Other fraud investigations are ongoing, and some cases have only resulted in indictments thus far and not convictions. So it's not possible to definitively calculate a total loss across all of the alleged schemes at this time. But the fraud is very much present. last question is this how does the claim about democratic representative ilhan omar marrying her brother fit into this story is there any truth to this so another claim that trump made in his truth truth social post was that minnesota representative ilhan omar married her brother now ilhan omar is a u.s citizen but she is of uh somali ancestry this claim that she married her brother

appears to be false but i do want to provide a little bit of context so this rumor started in 2016 when she was first elected to the Minnesota State House of Representatives. And the claim first appeared on an online Somali community discussion forum called Somali Spot, and it was later picked up by Powerline, which is a conservative blog. However, no public records like birth certificates, marriage records, or immigration documents have verified this claim. Multiple fact checks and investigative reporting have found no credible evidence supporting the claim. And investigative reporting by reputable outlets has similarly concluded that there is no

documented proof that her second husband, because she was married twice, that her second husband is also her brother. So that's what we know about that. Let's move on to talking about this media bias page. Some of you had questions about this. So I just want to talk about what it is. Basically on Friday, November 29th, the White House launched this media bias tracker, if you will, on its official White House website that highlights the, quote, unquote, media offenders against the administration. Now, when questioned about the purpose of the site during a recent press briefing, Press Secretary Levitt said in part, quote, it goes to our original promise on day one to hold the media accountable. There are so many fake stories that are unfortunately written that have inaccurate characterizations of meetings that took place.

And it's all based on anonymous sourcing. The standard for journalism has dropped to such a historic level. in this country. We appreciate the journalists, some of those who are in this room, who do reach out for comment, who try to get things right. And there are some that remain, but overwhelmingly the fake news that we see pumped out of this building on a day-to-day basis. It's honestly overwhelming to keep up with it at all. End quote. Now, if you go to the site itself, you'll see a headline that says misleading, biased, exposed. And then under that headline, it says media offender of the week, which presumably will be changed out each week.

As of today, the media offenders listed are the Boston Globe, CBS News, and the Independent. Then when you scroll down, you'll see the reporter's names from each of those outlets, the alleged false claim that these outlets put out, the quote-unquote offense, and then the claimed quote-unquote truth, and then key points and sources. So right now, it lists CBS News, the Boston Globe, and the Independent as offenders. It also lists the names of four different reporters. And then it says under the claim section, quote, media misrepresents and exaggerates President Trump's calls for democratic accountability, end quote.

Then under the offense section, it says, the media misrepresented President Trump's call for members of Congress to be held accountable for inciting sedition by saying that he called for execution. Then, under the truth section, it says, the Democrats and fake news media subversively implied that President Trump had issued illegal orders to service members. Every order President Trump has issued has been lawful. It is dangerous for sitting members of Congress to incite insubordination in the United States military. And President Trump called for them to be held accountable. And then under key points, it says Democrats released a video calling for service members to disobey their chain of command, and in turn, implied President Trump had issued illegal

orders, and President Trump has never issued an illegal order. The fake news knew that, but ran with the story anyway. Towards the bottom of the media bias webpage, there's a section called the Offender Hall of Fame, which is a, quote, record of the media's false and misleading stories flagged by the White House, end quote. And as of now, the Washington Post, CBS News, CNN, and MSNBC are listed. Then as you scroll down, there's a leaderboard. There's also a list of repeat offenders. So that's the deal with the webpage. All right, let's quickly do some quick hitters. Michael and Susan Dell, the family behind Dell Technologies, will donate $6.25 billion to fund the federal government's Trump accounts.

Trump accounts for those who aren't familiar. It's this new initiative launched by President Trump where the federal government is putting $1,000 into individual investment accounts for kids that born between January 1st, 2025 and December 31st, 2028. Families and others can contribute to these accounts so long as the contributions don't exceed $5,000 a year and the money can be taken out once the kid turns 18, but it's intended for specific purposes like higher education, buying a home, or starting a small business. Now, the Dell's gift will fund $250 for children ages 10 and under who were born before January 1, 2025. So the Dell's contribution is actually expanding the number of children that are eligible

for the account. For children to be eligible for the Dell's contribution, they have to live in zip codes where the median income is less than 150,000. Still though, the gift is expected to reach children across 75% of U.S. postal codes. The Dell family is also estimating that the investment accounts funded by their gift will be available to at least 25 million children. The Defense Department, Inspector General, filed a report on Tuesday that concluded that the information defense secretary Hegseth shared on the signal chat months ago was considered classified. That's according to two people who have read the report. The report supposedly found that the information Hegseth shared had been marked secret

and that Hegseth violated military regulations by using his personal phone for official business. The report also noted that Hegseth has the authority to declassify information based on his judgment, but it doesn't, the report doesn't address whether he took the proper steps to do so before he sent the information in the chat. And President Trump has pardoned Texas Democratic Congressman Henry Quayar. Quayar and his wife were facing more than a dozen federal conspiracy and bribery charges after allegedly accepting $600,000 in bribes from companies owned by Azerbaijan and a Mexican bank in exchange for influencing foreign policy. Trump wrote on truth social that the Biden administration weaponized the justice system when it indicted Quayar last

year because Quayar, quote, bravely spoke out against the Biden border catastrophe, end quote. And now it's time for rumor has it. My weekly segment where I address rumors submitted by all of you and I either confirm them, dispel them, or add context. Today we have two. First one. Rumor has it that the DOJ spent nearly $1 million on overtime pay for DOJ personnel to redact the Epstein files. This is true. Here's what we know. An investigative reporter with Bloomberg sued the FBI under what's called the Freedom of Information Act, otherwise known as FOIA. Foya gives the public the right to request access to records that are held by government agencies. So basically let's anyone ask the government to show them the documents so long as the requested documents

don't fall under one of nine exemptions. As part of that lawsuit, the FBI released files that showed that the agency had spent at least $851,000 the week of March 17th in overtime pay for 934 agents who were assigned the task of processing and redacting the Epstein files. Now, here's the thing. We knew that the redactions were happening. We just didn't know how much was being spent. Okay. So on March 22nd, various outlets reported that FBI agents were working around the clock, some working 12-hour overnight shifts to redact these files. And the reports noted that the redactions were being done to prepare for the pending public release of the files. As we know, those files were never released. In July, the FBI and DOJ came out and said no additional

files would be released. Now, some people have taken this claim even further and said that that overtime pay was specifically for removing Trump's name from the Epstein files, but there is no proof of that. second one rumor has it that Kamala Harris wants to lower the voting age to 16 this is also true in an appearance on the diary of a CEO podcast released at the end of October Harris said in part quote i think we should reduce the voting age to 16 i'll tell you why so gen z they're they're about age 13 or 27 they've only known the climate crisis they missed substantial parts of their education because of the pandemic if they're in high school or college it is very likely that whatever they've chosen as their major for may not result in an affordable wage. It is expected that Gen Z will have 10 to 12 jobs in their lifetime. They are a larger number than boomers. They are a specific generation of people who are going to impact our nation in the world. And I think we must invest in them. But I think that they are rightly impatient with a lot of what is the tradition of leadership right now. And if they were able to vote because they know everything that's happening right now is going to impact them more

than anybody older than them, for the most part, in terms of how these systems work. If they're voting right now at 16 and up, they're going to be talking about the importance of climate. They're going to be talking about the importance of figuring out how AI is going to affect the future of the workforce. They're going to be focused on what are we really doing about affordable housing, end quote. Okay, let's finish this episode with some critical thinking, shall we? We're going to revisit the Somali story. For those who support the administration's decision to target Somalis in Minnesota based on allegations of fraud. If the goal is to hold individuals accountable, I want you to think about what evidence

would justify extending suspicion to an entire ethnic or national group rather than just specific people. And then how do we distinguish legitimate law enforcement priorities from enforcement that risks targeting people based on nationality rather than behavior. And then for those who oppose the administration's decision to target Somalis in Minnesota, if large-scale fraud is found to be occurring within the Somali population, what level of law enforcement response would be appropriate to protect not only taxpayers, but also program integrity? And is it possible for immigration enforcement to be both strict and fair?

And if so, what would that look like in practice? That's what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here, as always. Do not forget, I will be releasing a Peace Talks episode tomorrow where I give a handful of you advice on how to navigate relationships and dynamics amid the polarizing political climate. So if you tune into that episode, which I hope that you do, I will talk to you tomorrow. but if you don't have a great weekend and i will talk to you again on monday