UNBIASED - February 12, 2026: Redacted Names in Epstein Files REVEALED, Clearing Up Rumors About the SAVE Act, Minneapolis ICE Operation Comes to an End, and More.

Episode Date: February 12, 2026

SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S ⁠SUBSTACK⁠. 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: Six Redacted Names in Epstein Files Revealed; Congresswoman Says Her Review Showed Some Alleged Victims Acting as Co-Conspirators (4:27) FAA Abruptly Shuts Down El Paso Airport; Conflicting Reasons Given By Government Officials (12:23) Border Czar Tom Homan Announces End to Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis (~19:11) DHS Closer to Shutting Down as Lawmakers Can't Reach Agreement on ICE Reforms (~21:15) Rumor Has It: Will the SAVE Act Block Married Women from Registering to Vote? Did Trump Call the Police Chief and Say He Was Happy About the Investigation Into Epstein? (~22:46) Critical Thinking Segment (~30:48) 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, February 12th. Let's talk about some news. Before we do, I do have a couple of administrative things to take care of, a couple of important things to mention. First, I'm sick again. Five weeks later, here we are again with the Miley Cyrus voice. And you know what, as I thought about it, I decided I'm blaming those of you who liked my Miley Cyrus. Eli Cyrus voice because I think the podcast God's heard you and they said, let's give the listeners what they want one more time before Jordan goes on maternity leave. And let me just say, I do not appreciate it. I'm happy that you guys get to hear this raspy voice again because I know so

many of you loved it, but not thrilled about being sick again. Which takes me to the second thing that I want to make mention of, maternity leave. So maternity leave is officially starting Monday, February 23rd. It is a few weeks earlier than expected, but it's doctor's orders, so we do have to abide by it. All is good. Baby's good. I'm good. But I will be starting leave a little earlier than I originally thought. With that said, I have been working around the clock to keep you guys fed during maternity leave. And when I say around the clock, I truly mean around the clock. It has been nonstop over here at my house. I'm just, you know, I'm obviously still getting all my usual episodes out, but then when I'm not doing that, I'm prepping like seven weeks of additional content. So

it's just been a lot, but I'm really, really, really excited about it. And I really hope that you guys tune in while I'm on leave just as religiously as you tune in on a regular basis. And I want to tell you why I'm so excited about it. And I'll go over this next week as well right before leave starts. But I put a lot of thought into what I wanted this series to be while I was on leave and how I wanted it to come across. And I finally landed on the perfect thing. So I named it unbiased university. And the reason it's so perfect is because it's a seven week series that's basically going to serve as a consolidated law school program. We talk about so many concepts on a daily basis on or I guess I should say on a biweekly basis on this body.

that I think we all should be deeply informed about. Okay, so things like the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the three branches of government, how the election process works, the evolution of the political parties here in the United States. Because here's the thing, if you think about any given episode of unbiased politics, we talk about Supreme Court opinions, we talk about new laws, we talk about executive orders, we talk about government shutdowns, we talk about all of these things that, sure, we understand, you know, at a top level, but imagine if you had a deep understanding of not only what these laws are that we talk about, but how laws are made, what exactly Supreme Court opinions mean, what kind of legal effect executive orders have?

Because those are different than laws, right? I could go on and on for days. But over the course of the next six, seven or so weeks, you are going to gain so much knowledge that when I come back from leave, you are going to be fully. prepared and ready to understand what is going on in our country on a much deeper level. And by the way, Unbiased University is only for the most curious. It is a very competitive admissions process. Okay.

So you should be very, very, very proud of yourself that you've been admitted and you get to start class at Unbiased University. So again, your first class starts on Monday, February 23rd. And it'll run through early to mid-April, depending on, how much content I can actually, you know, solidify. Okay, and then two more quick final notes, and then I promise we'll get into today's stories. Number one, there will be no episode on Monday because of the holiday.

And two, given the fact that I have been working around the clock on this unbiased university series and the fact that I am sick, today's episode is a bit shorter than usual, but it's also kind of all over the place. So as you guys know, usually I do four to five main, more in-depth stories and then quick hitters. but today it's really just going to be one longer story and that a bunch of shorter stories, which will kind of replace quick hitters, and then we'll just finish with rumor hazard and critical thinking. So with those notes out of the way, let's talk about some news. Starting with an Epstein files update. So last episode I mentioned in Quick Hitters that starting Monday, lawmakers gained access

to the unredacted Epstein files because when the Epstein Files Transparency Act was initially passed, it did allow redactions, but only in limited situations. So the law specifically says that the DOJ could redact records that contain personally identifiable information of victims, records that depict or contain child sex abuse materials, records that would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, records that depict or contain images of death, physical abuse, or injury to any person, or records that need to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and are properly classified. The DOJ could not redact documents on the basis of embarrassment,

reputational harm, or political sensitivity. So as we saw when the files were released, there were certain redactions that raised some eyebrows, specifically when it came to some of the emails, right? There were senders names and recipient's names that were blacked out in some cases. So naturally, people were wondering why those names would be redacted given the parameters set forth in the law. And two of those people that had questions were representatives Roe Kana and Thomas Massey, the two lawmakers who actually co-authored the Epstein Files Transparency Act. So they were some of the first lawmakers to go to DOJ headquarters on Monday and really take a look at these unredacted files. And one thing worth mentioning here too is that access to these unredacted files didn't

come from the Transparency Act itself. Okay. So the law actually doesn't say anything about lawmakers being able to review the files. It does say the DOJ has to provide a report to Congress that details why each redaction was made. But the actual authority to go to DOJ headquarters and review the files actually comes from Congress's broader oversight authority, which allows lawmakers to request sensitive or classified materials from executive agencies like the DOJ. when it's investigating whether the government is properly enforcing the law. So that is why these lawmakers are able to go to DOJ headquarters and actually take a look at these unredacted files. And that's what Kana and Massey did. Then in a speech on the House floor on

Tuesday, Kana said in part, quote, Mr. Speaker, yesterday Congressman Massey and I went to the Department of Justice to read the unredacted Epstein files. We spent about two hours there and we learned that 70 to 80 percent of the files are still redacted. In fact, there were six wealthy, powerful men that the DOJ hid for no apparent reason. When Congressman Massey and I pointed this out to the Department of Justice, they acknowledged their mistake and now they have revealed the identity of these six powerful men. These men are Salvatore Nura, Zorab Mekhalaj, Leonov, Nikola Caputo, Sulton Ahmed bin Salyam, CEO, that's the CEO of Dubai Portsworld, and then billionaire businessman,

businessman Leslie Wexner, who was also, now we know, labeled as a co-conspirator by the FBI in this EPSC investigation, though he was never charged. But anyway, Conn goes on to say, now my question is, why did it take Thomas Massey and me going to the Justice Department

to get these six men's identities to become public? And if we found six men that they were hiding in two hours, imagine how many men they are covering up for in those three million files. end quote. Now, although we've learned the identities of the six men, we still do not know the role that they play in the files or in what context they are named, right? We know that Leslie Wexner was one of Epstein's clients in the sense that Epstein managed Wexner's finances for years. Their relationship is very well documented. And as I just said a few minutes ago, we now know that internal FBI

documents have reportedly labeled Wexner as a potential co-conspirator in the broader Epstein investigation, but he's never faced any charges. And also his representatives have denied any criminal wrongdoing. So we still don't really know much at all on that front. As for Sultan Ahmed bin Sullyam, he's the CEO of Dubai Portsworld, as I said before, which is this multinational port logistics company based in Dubai. Certain reports, have said that the records that included his name include at least one email exchange between him and Epstein that referenced explicit content and also reported that their relationship was ongoing even after Epstein's 2008 conviction. But again, we don't have many details there either.

The remaining four individuals, Salvatore Nura, Zerob, Mikhailadezay, Leonov, and Nikola Keputo are far less understood as far as their relationships with Epstein. Nura. Micheladez and Leonov appear to be more private individuals with really little to no publicity at all. And some believe that Nicola Caputo might be the Italian politician who was formerly a member of the European Parliament, but that has not been verified. It's just what some people are thinking based on the name. So that's what we found out about the six men's or the names of the six men that were revealed. Now, around the same time, Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna went on the Benny Show with Benny Johnson and said that she reviewed some of the emails, specifically an email that references

the age 11, the June 2014 email sent from a redacted sender to Epstein that says, quote, I give you permission to kill him. He is apparently with redacted. He lied to you and he lied to me. She also reviewed some of the multiple emails sent to Epstein that reference Snow White, which seems to be a code word. We just don't know what it means. And then she also saw the March 2014 email sent by a redacted sender to Epstein that says, quote, thank you for a fun night. Your littlest girl was a little naughty, end quote. And Paulina Luna says that those specific emails that she reviewed were, quote, directly sent by alleged victims. End quote.

Benny Johnson then asked her, so you're saying these victims are being groomed into sex traffickers themselves. And she says, quote, well, there's evidence of that. And then Benny says, quote, so they're not actually victims. And Paulina Luna says, quote, I think that there are some that are actual victims, but I also think that at a certain point, depending on the severity of what you're doing, I think that there's a gray area and then you become a co-conspirator, end quote. And what Paulina Luna is saying here is kind of in line with what a DOJ official said last week, which was that any fully redacted names are of victims. So that official said, quote, in many instances, as it has been well documented publicly, those who are. were originally victims became participants and co-conspirators. We did not redact any names of men only female victims. End quote. But of course, we know that's not entirely true either because we now know of at least six names of men that were redacted, right? So it seems both are happening here. It seems

some of the names redacted are names of victims that eventually became participants and co-conspirators in Epstein's sex trafficking scheme. And then other redacted names are names of men who were never victims and only participants or co-conspirators. The DOJ does still have to submit its report to Congress by the end of this week, which is supposed to detail the redactions that were made and why those redactions were made. So I'm sure we're bound to find out more in the coming weeks, if not, you know, coming months as the lawmakers carry out their oversight duties and continue to review the unredacted files. All right, switching gears a little bit. The FAA, a shut down the El Paso airport on Tuesday night, originally saying the airport would be shut down for 10 days, but then reopen the airport roughly seven hours later. So the initial announcement cited special security reasons for the closure, but did not elaborate more than that. And then later in the day on Wednesday, the FAA lifted the restriction. And transportation secretary Sean Duffy said, quote, the FAA and DOW acted swiftly to address a cartel drone incursion. The threat has been neutralized. And there's

no danger to commercial travel in the region. These restrictions have been lifted and normal flights are resuming, end quote. An unnamed Trump official also reportedly told Fox News, quote, Mexican cartel drones breached U.S. airspace. The Department of War took action to disable the drones. The FAA and DOW have determined there is no threat to commercial travel, end quote. So some administration officials are saying the closure was because of a cartel drone. Other officials, though, have said this closure was actually due to the testing of a new government high-energy laser technology, which the government didn't actually notify the FAA of. So apparently within the last week or so, this new laser technology was used to shoot down four milar or helium-filled balloons, sometimes are called party balloons, in the El Paso area. Then within the last couple of days, the laser technology was used again to shoot down a Mexican-carriage.

drone that was crossing into U.S. airspace. That's according to the administration that this cartel drone was shot down, but this this laser technology is also part of the issue. So perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle. According to CNN, which cited sources familiar with the matter, FAA and Pentagon officials had been scheduled to meet on February 20th to review potential impacts and mitigation measures for a test of this laser system. But the Defense Department wanted to use the system sooner around El Paso, which is what prompted the FAA to impose this temporary flight restriction until that coordination could occur.

And that's why that original 10-day restriction was set to expire on February 21st because that would have been one day after the Defense Department and FAA were set to meet and discuss all of this. but as we know, the restriction was lifted just hours later. The FAA's decision to close the airspace was apparently made without telling the White House first, which then reportedly became a topic of focus inside the West Wing when Texas lawmakers were trying to get answers on why the airspace was closed so suddenly without any sort of notice. In fact, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has since called for a classified briefing in the Senate so that they can, you know, understand what exactly happened here. Now, just to add some color and kind of explain why the decision to close the airspace so abruptly and for so long is pretty unusual, there are hundreds of incursions along the U.S.-Mexico border each month.

And we never typically see a response like this. In 2024, the commander of Northcom told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the number of incursions along the U.S. Mexico border was, quote, over a thousand each month. But again, despite that, we don't typically see a closure. like this. So it's safe to say we don't have all the answers here. The administration is blaming a cartel drone. Other unnamed officials are saying the closure was because of this counter drone laser testing. So, you know, it's hard to know where exactly the truth lies. But if we find out more, I will be sure to let you know. Let's take a quick break here. When we come back, we'll talk about some more news. And then we'll finish with rumor has it and critical thinking.

You might be tempted to let Taco Bell's new Lux value menu go to your head. Because 10 indulgences for $5 or less makes you feel fancy. Like you might think you need cloth napkins. Well, you don't. Just use the ones that come in the bag. Don't let the lux go to your head. Welcome back. Borders are Tom Homan announced today that Operation Metro Surge, which was the months-long immigration enforcement crackdown in Minnesota, will come to an end. He said in a press conference in part, quote, I'm very pleased to report that this surge operation and our work here with state and local officials to improve coordination and achieve mutual goals, as well as our efforts to address issues of a concern here on the ground, have yielded the successful results we have come here

for. With that and success that has been made addressing public safety threats and other priorities since the surge operation began, as well as the unprecedented levels of coordination we have obtained from state and local law enforcement, I have proposed and President Trump has concurred that this surge operation conclude." And quote, Homan noted that, the drawdown has been happening throughout this week in Minnesota, and he did say the drawdown will continue into next week, but also said that immigration enforcement will continue throughout the country, and that a, quote, small footprint of personnel will remain in Minnesota specifically. So just to be clear, what we're seeing happen here is a shift in strategy. So the on-the-ground

immigration enforcement operation, known as Operation Metro Surge, will come. come to an end. Instead, ICE is shifting to a law enforcement coordination strategy. And as I've said before, this is kind of Tom Homan's specialty, right? He did this during the Obama administration as well. That's part of the reason the Obama administration had so many deportations is because Tom Homan really coordinated with state and local agencies to deport immigrants when they were detained. So basically what happens is when undocumented immigrants are detained for crimes in various cities, specifically in this case in Minneapolis, these local and state law enforcement agencies report to ICE. And then ICE is able to take custody of these people directly from the jails. So that's the strategy shift that we're seeing here.

And speaking of DHS and ICE, Senator Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate's spending panel, said today that the caucus will oppose. any votes on a stop gap, a stopgap spending bill for the DHS later today. If you remember, Congress agreed to this stopgap measure two weeks ago, which temporarily funded the DHS for two weeks while they negotiated ICE reforms. That funding expires tomorrow at midnight. So it appears as if Congress in the White House are not yet ready to agree on reforms. And potentially this idea of another stopgap measure has been proposed. But Senator Murray is saying that Democrats won't agree.

to another stopgap measure that they are specifically looking for these reforms. They do have one more day to get something done. So we'll see what happens. It's just that, you know, potentially DHS funding could cut off tomorrow night. It's looking like that may happen. But we'll see. And as I've mentioned in recent episodes, if DHS funding does expire tomorrow night, what will happen is the department as a whole would mostly be shut down.

but immigration enforcement and ICE specifically would continue to operate. And that's because border control and immigration are considered as central government functions, which do continue to operate even during a shutdown. Plus, you know, ICE does have this $75 billion in funding that it was specifically allocated last year. So ICE would remain at least partially funded, even if the DHS isn't. Okay, let's move on to rumor has it. So this first one, a lot of you asked about.

Rumor has it that the SAVE Act will take away the right to vote from married women who have changed their last names. This is false in the sense that it is way oversimplified. So we're going to add some context here. The original SAVE Act, otherwise known as the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, was first introduced in 2024 during the 2024 election cycle. And it passed the House in a 221 to 198 vote with five Democrats joining 260. Republicans, but that congressional session ended at the end of the year without the Senate ever voting on it. So the bill died. Then it got reintroduced again last year. Okay. And again, it passed the House and a 220 to 208 vote again stalled in the Senate. And of course, because the congressional session ended without

both chambers passing the bill, the bill again died. It had to be reintroduced when Congress reconvened in January of this year. And that's what happened. It was reintroduced in January. And it just passed the House this week in a 218 to 213 vote, which means it'll now go to the Senate. So we'll see if the Senate actually votes on it this time. But the one thing that I'll clarify, so the last two bills that were introduced were just known as the Save Act. This bill that was reintroduced this year is called the Save America Act. It differs slightly from the two versions introduced in years prior. but the core ID requirements are the same, and that's what's important for this discussion. So that's what we're going to focus on.

The law requires people to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. Now, currently, you do have to be a U.S. citizen to vote in federal elections, okay? But per Supreme Court precedent, you don't have to show document. proof of citizenship. It is enough to simply attest to citizenship under penalty of perjury. So not all states require documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote. Now, here's what I'll say too. Since this bill passed the House last year and now that it's been passed again, there

are a lot of questions surrounding what this would mean for married women who change their last names. Some say the Save Act could stop married women from voting. So first, I want to clarify that this bill doesn't explicitly say anything about barring married women from voting. These claims are instead rooted in concerns about how the barriers to voting that might come from this bill could disproportionately impact married women or anyone who has changed their name, like in the legal sense, right? It's not just married women. It's anyone who's legally changed their name. And this stems from the fact that if you are not providing a passport as a proof of citizenship or a real ID compliant ID card and you're instead just providing a government

issued photo ID that's not consistent with the requirements of real ID, your ID has to be shown with another document like a birth certificate. So for a married woman who changes her last name, let's say, she can show a real ID compliant ID and register to vote without an issue. She can show a passport and register to vote without an issue. The potential issue arises if she doesn't have either of those things and only has a regular photo ID, a photo ID that is not real ID compliant. In that case, she would have to show not only her regular photo ID, but also her birth certificate. Now, obviously there's a potential situation where her birth certificate doesn't match her current ID if her ID reflects her new last name, right? And that's where a problem

could arise. However, keep in mind that the bill doesn't explicitly say that the name on your birth certificate and the name on your government issued photo ID has to match to count. It is possible, though, that if the names on those two things don't match, one might have to provide additional documentation. We have existing government processes where, you know, you can show your birth certificate as ID. And then typically, if necessary, a married woman who has changed her last name can then use a copy of her marriage certificate to account for the discrepancy in her last name. So potentially that's what would happen here as well. Now, of course, this bill has not been passed by the Senate. So we don't know how, we don't know how this would play out in practice and what processes would be used in the case of a married woman who changed.

their last name and doesn't have a passport or a real ID compliant ID card. In fact, the bill, as it's written, actually leaves it to the states to establish a process for people whose legal name doesn't match their birth certificate to provide additional documents. But I want to be very clear about the fact that the claim that this bill will ban married women from being able to register to vote or will take away a woman's married woman's right to vote. That is false. please don't forget that a woman's right to vote is in the Constitution, which means that for that to ever go away, there would have to be a new constitutional amendment revoking the 19th Amendment, which would be virtually impossible. So the one thing that I want you to take away from the story is that the way that this law is written and keep in mind it has not yet passed the Senate, assume that it does pass the Senate, okay, and it does become law. if you have changed your name legally, you can show a passport and register to vote just fine.

You can show a real ID compliant ID and register to vote just fine. If you don't have either of those things, you can show a regular photo ID, but you have to have some other form of documentation with it. And those other forms of documentation are listed in the law. Okay. second and final rumor has it. Rumor has it that President Trump called the former Palm Beach Police Chief in the 2000s to say he was happy they were stopping Epstein.

According to the former police chief himself and FBI internal records, this is true. So here's what we know. A former Palm Beach police chief who investigated Epstein in the 2000s told the FBI in a 2019 interview that he had received a call from Trump at the time of the investigation to say, quote, thank goodness you're stopping him. everyone has known he's been doing this. End quote. Now, as we know, Trump himself has said in the past that he stopped being friends with Epstein

more than 20 years ago, but that he never knew anything about Epstein's crimes. However, per this FBI internal record, the FBI interviewed this individual in October 2019 in the presence of a detective and a special agent. And this record summarizes what was said in that interview. And on page three, the record says, quote, Palm Beach Country Club is a Jewish country club. A lot of wealthy people are there and they flock together. Mar-a-Lago is a mixture of everyone. Donald Trump told, redacted, that he threw Epstein out of his club. Trump called the Palm Beach Police Department to tell him, quote, thank goodness you're stopping him. Everyone has known he's been doing this. And quote, Trump told him people in New York knew Epstein was disgusting. Trump said Maxwell was Epstein's operative. Quote, she is evil and to focus on her. End quote. Trump told redacted that he was around Epstein once when teenagers were present and Trump, quote, got the hell out of there, end quote. Trump was one of the very first people to call when people found out that they were investigating Epstein, end quote.

So that is what we know from this FBI internal record. And just for clarity sake, this is a internal record that was released as part of the Epstein files release. Okay, for today's critical thinking segment, let's go back to the Save Act. So I have two questions about policy impact, and then I have a question about, I guess, media literacy and just like rumors and claims generally. So my first question is this. Besides married women, who else could this law affect? Based on what I've told you about what the ID requirements are, who else could this law affect besides married women? My second question is because the bill leaves it to the states to create procedures for voters.

whose legal names don't match their birth certificates, what safeguards or administrative processes could states implement to minimize potential barriers to voter registration? And then finally, and this is my media literacy question, when you see a claim about a law or an executive order or whatever it might be, taking away rights, are you more inclined to believe it right off the bat or do you express some doubt?

And what factors do you think influence that initial reaction? That is what I have for you. Don't forget that there is no episode on Monday because of the holiday, but I will be back with you on Thursday for the last episode. Before maternity leave, I cannot believe I'm saying that. It's just crazy. Have an amazing weekend, and I will talk to you next week.