UNBIASED - February 19, 2026: The Colbert/Talarico/FCC/CBS Drama Explained, EPA Repeals "Endangerment Finding," Explaining the SAVE American Act Voter Registration Requirements, and More.

Episode Date: February 19, 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: EPA Repeals "Endangerment Finding." Here's What You Should Know (1:47) Stephen Colbert Accuses CBS of Pulling Rep. Talarico Interview Over FCC Rule (10:54) Quick Hitters: Trump May Make Decision Soon on Iran Action, Schumer Proposes Legislation to Protect Pride Flag, ICE Agreements with Local Law Enforcement Up 950%, New DHS Memo Allows Arrest and Detainment of Certain Refugees (~23:15) Rumor Has It: Diving Deep Into the SAVE America Act and Voter Registration Requirements. PLUS Did Two ICE Agents Lie Under Oath About Shooting a Man? Here's What You Should Know. (~26:44) 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 19th, and it is the last episode until Unbiased University starts on Monday. So I will officially be starting maternity leave on Monday, which sadly means that this will be the last news episode for the foreseeable future. The good news is that I will be back. Okay. I'm not leaving you for a I promise I will be back. I just obviously need to take some time to get acclimated to this new phase of life that I'm entering into. And then the other good thing is that you get to attend Unbiased University for the next eight weeks, which will be so, so, so, so, so valuable.

I cannot emphasize enough how excited I am for just how much you are going to learn. And I'm even more excited because when I get back from maternity leave, you are going to have so much knowledge. about all of these concepts that are in the background of every single news story that we talk about. So throughout Unbiased University, you'll learn about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the three branches of government, the Supreme Court, the hidden power players in Washington, so many different things. So a lot to look forward to. I am just as sad as you that I, you know, won't be here on the mic twice a week telling

you about the news, but I'll be back before you know it. and, you know, in the interim, you're going to learn so much. So that's the deal with that. In today's episode, we're going to talk about some of the bigger stories from the last week or so. We'll do quick hitters. Rumor has it. And then before I finish the episode, I'll leave you with some nonpartisan news sources that

you can keep up with while I'm on maternity leave. So let's start with the first story, which is that last week, shortly after Thursday's episode went live, the EPA announced the finalization of a rule over. returning the agency's 2009 endangerment finding. Now, in order to understand what this repeal means and what its effects will be, we have to discuss what the endangerment finding is and where it came from. So we have to back up to 2007 when the Supreme Court decided a case called Massachusetts versus EPA. And in that case, what the court held was that greenhouse gases are air pollutants that are covered by the Clean Air Act and that the EPA administrator,

has to determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars specifically cause or contribute to air pollution that might reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or on the other hand, the EPA can decide whether the science is just too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. But the EPA had to come to some sort of finding. So in response to that Supreme Court decision in December 2009, the EPA administrator signed off on an endangerment finding and then also a cause or contribute finding. So two separate findings actually. And the endangerment finding found that the current and projected concentrations of six greenhouse gases threaten public health and the welfare of current and future generations and therefore, you know, require,

these greenhouse gases require regulation because under section 202A of the Clean Air Act, once the EPA determines that a pollutant endangers public health, the agency is legally required to regulate emissions of that pollutant from new cars and trucks. That's Section 202A of the Clean Air Act. It specifically applies to cars and trucks. And the six greenhouse gases listed in that endangerment finding included carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, HFCs, PFCs, and sulfur hexafluoride. The cause or contribute finding found that the combined emissions of these greenhouse gases

from new cars and new car engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution that threatens public health and welfare. So technically two separate findings, but they both play into each other. Now, the findings themselves did not impose any new requirements on industries or businesses, But what it did do is it served as the prerequisite or the legal foundation for implementing new greenhouse gas emissions standards. And eventually, the government went on to implement various federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions using this 2009 endangerment binding as its legal basis. So to give you some examples, in the wake of this endangerment binding, the EPA set limits on greenhouse gas emissions from light and meat. medium duty cars and trucks beginning with the model year 2012.

The EPA also set emissions for the engines specifically that are used in the aforementioned cars. And eventually, the government also used this endangerment finding to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from other sectors as well, like power plants and industrial facilities. However, and this is an important point to make, these other climate rules for power plants and industrial facilities and other industries, they're not automatically repealed with the administration's new repeal rule. The new repeal rule only automatically repeals greenhouse gas standards for cars and trucks specifically. And I understand how that could be confusing, so let me explain. The original endangerment finding was signed under Section 202A of the Clean Air Act. Section 202A of the Clean Air Act,

specifically requires that the EPA administrator set emissions standards for any pollutant from new motor vehicles specifically that cause or contribute to air pollution that might endanger public health or welfare. So the EPA's repeal action that we just saw at the end of last week only directly repealed the finding and consequently the greenhouse gas standards for motor vehicles. it did not automatically erase all other federal climate and pollution regulations. With that said, though, repealing the endangerment finding will certainly weaken the legal foundation for these other regulations because the endangerment finding, while it only applied directly to cars, it has served as the legal basis for a lot of these other rules as well.

So while this repeal doesn't automatically erase every single federal climate rule for sectors like power plants or industrial sources, it does make it legal. harder to justify said rules without some sort of new or different legal basis. Now, notably, in the repeal rule, the EPA's position is not that climate change is a hoax or that greenhouse gases are harmless, right? Instead, the EPA is using a much narrower argument, claiming that the threshold under Section 202A of the Clean Air Act was never properly met in the first place and that the original finding exceeded the scope of what Congress actually authorized the EPA to do. So as we discussed earlier under Section 202A of the Clean Air Act, the EPA

administrator has to regulate emissions from new motor vehicles if in their judgment those emissions cause or contribute to air pollution, which can endanger public health or welfare. The Trump administration argues that the Obama administration interpreted that language too broadly. and essentially said greenhouse gases contribute to climate change. That climate change threatens public health and welfare, and therefore, vehicle greenhouse gases have to be regulated. Instead of that broad interpretation, the Trump administration argues the law should be interpreted to only allow for the regulation of traditional localized air pollutants like smog, soot and sulfur dioxide, pollutants that directly degrade air quality.

The Trump administration argues that greenhouse gases don't act the same way as these other pollutants, that greenhouse gases are globally mixed, they are not localized and that their effects are indirect and happen over long periods of time and that they're tied to climate systems, not immediate air quality in specific regions. So the repeal argues that Congress didn't clearly intend for Section 202A to be used as this mechanism for regulating global climate change. It was instead intended to be used as a mechanism to regulate traditional localized pollutants. And just to touch on that clear intention phrase for a second, we have this doctrine here in the United States called the Major Questions Doctrine, which says that when an agency claims the power to regulate an issue of vast economic and political significance, courts expect clear congressional authorization to do that. So the Trump administration is basically arguing that if Congress intended, to give EPA the power to restructure large portions of the national economy to address climate change,

it would have said so more explicitly, and it didn't do that. Now, supporters of the repeal argued the endangerment finding gave the executive branch too much power to impose these sweeping regulations on the economy without clear congressional backing, and by doing away with it, we can access more American energy and make things more affordable by lowering costs for manufacturers. According to the EPA, the rule's repeal is estimated to eliminate over $1.3 trillion in compliance costs and reduce the average vehicle purchase price by about $2,400. Critics, though, dispute the administration's rationale for the repeal. So they cite various assessments and findings that continue to link greenhouse gas emissions to warming temperatures,

extreme weather, sea level rise, and public health risks. They argue that removing the regulatory obligation will lead to higher emissions, could result in severe consequences for health and infrastructure over time. According to the New York Times, the repeal is expected to increase U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 10% over the next 30 years. It's worth noting that several environmental and public health organizations have already filed a lawsuit. So we'll have to see how this plays out in the courts.

It's ultimately going to come down to the court's interpretation of Section 202A and what the court feels the EPA has the authority. to regulate under the law. Does the EPA have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, or was the law only meant to allow the EPA to regulate traditional localized pollutants? That's the question it'll most likely come down to, but we will see. Okay, moving on, let's talk about the Colbert-Talerico interview that so many of you have questions about. Earlier this week, Stephen Colbert said on an episode of his late show that CBS had pulled a tape interview with Texas Senate candidate, current Texas state House Representative James Tala Rico from the broadcast. Colbert said in part, quote,

stick around for my guest this evening. Jennifer Gardner will be here. What a joy. And you know who is not one of my guests tonight? That's Texas State Representative James Tala Rico. He was supposed to be here, but we were told in no uncertain terms by our network's lawyers who called us directly that we could not have him on the broadcast. Then I was told in some uncertain terms that not only could I not have him on, I cannot mention me not having him on. And because my network clearly doesn't want us to talk about this, let's talk about this. So you might have heard of this thing called the equal time rule. It's an old FCC rule that applies only to radio and broadcast television, not cable or streaming. It says that if a show has a candidate on during an election, they have to have all that

candidates' opponents as well. There's been a long exception for this rule and exception for news interviews with politicians. But on January 21st of this year, a letter was released by a FCC chairman Brendan Carr saying he was considering dropping the exception for talk shows because he said some talk shows are motivated bipartisan purpose. And quote, Colbert then goes on to talk for a few more minutes. He accuses the Trump administration of wanting to silence anyone who has anything bad to say about him and then says that the Talarico interview would be posted to his late show's YouTube page since the equal time rule does not apply there. So that was Colbert's initial statement. Then CBS came out and released their own statement and said, quote, the late show was not prohibited by CBS from

broadcasting the interview with Representative James Talarico. The show was provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal time rule for two other candidates, including Representative Jasmine Crockett, and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled. The late show decided to present the interview through its YouTube channel with on-air promotion on the broadcast rather than potentially providing. providing the equal time options. End quote. So then in the next episode of The Late Show, Colbert reads that statement on air and he responds

to it. And he says, in part, quote, they know damn well that every word of my script was approved by CBS's lawyers who, for the record, approve every script that goes on air, very specifically. In fact, between the monologue I did last night and before I did the second act talking about the issue, I had to go backstage. I got called backstage to get more notes from these lawyers, something. that had never, ever happened before. And they told us the language they wanted me to use to describe that equal time rule exception, and I use that language. So I don't know what this is about. For the record,

I'm not even mad. I don't want an adversarial relationship with the network. And for the lawyers to release this without even talking to me is really surprising. End quote. Okay, so let me tell you what this is about. So here in the U.S. we have something called the equal time rule. It stems from the Communications Act of 1934, and it requires broadcast radio and TV license holders to give all legally qualified candidates for the same office comparable access if they give one candidate airtime. Now, candidates generally have to request equal time for the obligation to be triggered, and the rule also has exceptions, like for bona fide newscasts, bona fide news interviews, bona fide news documentaries, as well as on the spot coverage of bona fide news events. And late night shows have historically relied on the bona fide news interview exception.

Basically what that means is political opponents don't get to demand airtime, equal airtime, from these late night shows like they might get to with, you know, other types of programming. For example, the FCC has historically treated shows like the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, the late show with David Letterman, even the late show with Stephen Colbert in the past, as exempt interview programs. The issue here lies with this new FCC guidance that was issued in January, which some are interpreting as narrowing how candidate interviews on entertainment or talk shows might qualify for this exemption that we're talking about. And that new guidance is what triggered CBS to pull Colbert's interview with Talibico. Basically, or I guess according to CBS, they didn't pull it.

they gave Colbert options. But basically, the guidance from the FCC said that the FCC might start to apply closer scrutiny to whether entertainment or late night talk shows qualify as bona fide news interview programs for purposes of this equal rule, equal time exception. And that when determining whether a late night talk show qualifies for an equal time exemption, the FCC might look more closely at things like. like editorial conduct, timing of appearances, close to elections, and whether candidate access appears preferential. The guidance also said that shows that resemble entertainment programming,

more than news programming, might not automatically qualify for the exemption. But there are two things to keep in mind here. And before I tell you those two things to keep in mind, let me just say, I do have construction going on at my house right now. I do hear the drill right now. So just, you know, you might hear it in the background. Hopefully my mic is good enough to not pick it up. I did just want to warn you. Okay, so two things to keep in mind here. On one hand, the FCC's new guidance is just that. Okay, it's guidance.

It's not a new regulation. The FCC hasn't repealed or rewritten the bona fide news interview exemption. So the bona fide news interview exemption has not been taken away. It's still very much exists. But on the other hand, because broadcast networks are regulated by the FCC and they operate under regulatory risk, the lawyers for these broadcast networks are naturally going to become more cautious when they receive guidance like this, even though it is merely guidance. They don't want their network to be targeted with some sort of penalty. So they're going to play it safe and just cater to what the

FCC wants. That's the issue. Colbert is relying on this longstanding FCC precedent that treats late night talk shows like his as exempt from this equal time rule. And he argues that the equal time rule historically hasn't applied to programs like his and that the the law itself has not changed. But CBS is saying, well, the exemption is determined on a case-by-case basis by the FCC. And because of this new guidance, we're just going to manage our legal risk here and choose not to air this interview and potentially cause problems. Now, one more piece to add to all of this is that Tala Rico's opponent, Jasmine Crockett, has said since all of this, that she believes the federal government, the FCC, did not play a role in pulling the interview with

Talarico. She says the interview was pulled by either Colbert himself or CBS because they didn't want her on Colbert's show. Because remember, the equal time rule requires all legally qualified candidates for the same office to get equal airtime. Tala Rico and Crockett are running for the same office. So she thinks that either Colbert or CBS didn't want to run the risk of triggering the equal time rule and having to give her a spot on the show. CBS did say in its statement that it didn't prohibit Colbert from broadcasting the interview with Tallarico and instead provided options for how the other candidates could, you know, how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled. Then of course, Colbert said that he would have no issue with having Crockett on his show

since she's already been on twice already. So there's a lot of he said she said happening here. We're not really sure what, you know, what the complete truth is. But that's the issue. It stems from this equal time rule. And basically Colbert saying late night shows have never been treated like this. The administration is trying to silence these late night talk shows. And CBS is just trying to kind of play by the FCC's rules. So let's take a break here.

When we come back, we'll finish with quick hitters. And rumor has it. So this morning I got a lovely email from Rocket Money telling me that there was a large transaction detected in my bank account and immediately my hard drops. And I know you know this feeling, right? Your mind starts spiraling. When was the last time I saw my debit card? Did I leave it somewhere? Did someone steal it? Is someone draining my bank account as we speak? Am I going broke? Is all of my money gone? And fortunately, or unfortunately, it turns out, that I just forgot about an upcoming bill, which is both good and bad, right? Like, I forgot about this bill that I'm responsible for.

But at the same time, at least my bank account isn't getting drained by some thief out there. there. But the reason I'm telling you this is because Rocket Money has given me so much peace of mind in so many ways when it comes to finances, not just when it comes to these alerts letting me know of large transactions that I always seem to forget about, but also when it comes to budgeting and savings. So Rocket Money is a personal finance app that helps you find and cancel your unwanted subscriptions, monitors your spending, and helps you lower your bills so you can grow your savings. In fact, one of the things I love most about Rocket Money is the way you can set budgets and goals in the app and then set payments to autopilot so you automatically save for the goal

without having to manually set the money aside. Let Rocket Money help you reach your financial goals faster. Join at RocketMoney.com slash unbiased. That's rocketmoney.com slash unbiased. Rocketmoney.com slash unbiased. Welcome back. Time for some quick hitters. The United States is reportedly prepared to strike Iran as early as this weekend. Now the president has not yet made a final decision, though he did suggest at a Board of Peace meeting today that the decision could come in the next 10 days. One source has said that Trump has privately argued both for and against military actions in Iran and talk to advisors and allies about what the best course of action would be. According to a person familiar with the matter, top national security officials did meet Wednesday

in the situation room to discuss the situation, for lack of a better word. And that was one day after negotiators from Iran and the United States sat for a three and a half hour talk in Geneva, but walked away without a resolution. Iran has also been engaging in some war prep this week. They issued a notice to airmen that it's planning to launch rockets and areas across its south, and it was conducting Navy drills this week. So we'll have our eyes on that. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer proposed legislation to designate the pride flag as a congressionally authorized symbol, which in effect would grant it the same federal protections as the U.S. flag. So basically this proposal stems from a recent federal directive, which restricts

flags on national park service sites to only U.S. flags, military flags, and authorized historical and tribal flags. That directive ultimately led to the pride flag being removed from Stonewall National Monument because it doesn't fall into any one of these protected categories. Now, Schumer's proposal would still have to pass the House, it would have to pass the Senate, and it would have to get the president's signature to become binding law. And if the president didn't sign it, it would need support from two-thirds of the House and the Senate. Since Trump started his second term, ICE has seen a 950% increase in agreements with local law enforcement agencies to assist with immigration arrests. So basically, these agreements are called 287G agreements, and they allow certain specially

trained local or state officers to perform certain actions related either to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of non-citizens. It's essentially a cooperation agreement between the local and state level and, you know, federal immigration officers. So the first agreement was implemented back in 2002 following 9-11. And the number of agreements increased after that to 72 in 2011. That was during the Obama administration. That was that was a high at that point. But then it dropped to 35 by the end of the Obama administration. And during Trump's first administration, the number went back up to 150, which was a record at the time. Then it went back down to 135 under Biden. And now as of January 26th of this year, there are 1,168 287G agreements in place. So a

significant increase from what we have seen historically. And speaking of immigration, the DHS issued a new memo, broadening federal immigration officers authority to detain legal refugees who have not yet obtained green cards. So per the new memo, immigration officers can arrest and detain refugees who have, quote, failed to adjust to lawful permanent resident status one year after being admitted to the United States. Refugees who are detained in accordance with this new memo can remain in custody quote for the duration of the inspection and examination process, end quote. And now it is time for rumor has it, my weekly segment where I address recent rumors submitted by all of you and do my best to either confirm them, dispel them, and or add context.

For the first rumor, I actually want to clarify an explanation I gave last week. So in last Thursday's rumor has it segment, I addressed the Save America Act. But some of you had questions, understandably so. so what I want to do is restate what I said last week and then I'll add some more information and context to the discussion. Last week, the rumor was that the Save America Act would take away the right to vote for married women who have changed their last names. And I said that the rumor is false in the sense that it's way oversimplified. It does not take away the right to vote. It just creates more hurdles when it comes to registering to vote for not just married women, but anyone who has changed their name since birth or doesn't have a birth.

certificate or some other form of ID that proved citizenship. So 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. It passed the House, but then that congressional session ended without the Senate voting on it, so it died. Then it was reintroduced again last year in 2025, again passed the House, again stalled in the Senate, didn't pass the Senate by the time the congressional session ended, so the bill died. So when Congress reconvened in January of this year, it was reintroduced yet again, this time as the Save America Act. And again, it has passed the House, which means it's now waiting in the Senate. And we'll have to see if the Senate actually votes on it

this time. It likely won't because of a rule called the cloture rule, but we'll get there. So what the Save America Act would do is require people to show documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections. Per the Supreme Court, only U.S. citizens can vote in federal elections, but you currently do not have to show documentary proof of citizenship. It is enough to attest to citizenship under penalty of perjury. So it is enough to swear that you are a citizen in the United States, and if you are found to be lying, you could be charged with perjury. And that is what most states currently require. Most states do not require documentary proof of citizenship. There are only four states that do, I believe. But that's what the Save America

Act is trying to change. According to the text of the law, voters would be required to show proof of citizenship through either a passport or a real ID compliant ID that indicates citizenship. If you do not have either of those things, and instead you're just providing a regular government-issued photo ID, you have to also show some other document like a birth certificate, something that shows you were born or you are a citizen of the United States. So the potential issue arises if someone doesn't have a passport or a real ID compliant ID that indicates citizenship and has legally changed their name since birth. Because in that case, they would have to show not only their regular photo ID, but also a birth certificate.

And their birth certificate wouldn't match their new legal name. After last week's explanation, a lot of you still had questions about whether a real ID compliant ID alone was sufficient for purposes of this law, considering not all real ID compliant IDs proved citizenship. And I should have been more clear about it when I originally explained it. That is my fault. So allow me to be more clear about it now. The exact text of the law says, in part, quote, as used in this act, the term documentary proof of United States citizenship means any of the following. A form of ID issued consistent with the requirements of the Real ID Act of 2005 that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States, a valid United

States passport, a valid government issued photo ID card showing the applicant's place of birth was in the United States, or if the ID card doesn't show the applicant's place of birth, a valid government issued photo ID card, but only if presented with a certified birth certificate, a final adoption decree, a naturalization certificate, et cetera. Now, the goal here is obviously proving citizenship one way or another, right? Whether it's a passport, a real ID that proves citizenship, a photo ID that proved citizenship, or some other government issued ID that doesn't necessarily prove citizenship by itself, but is presented with something that does prove citizenship. So here's what we need to address. A regular standard passport obviously

proves citizenship, okay? That's the whole point of a passport. But not all real ID compliant ID cards prove citizenship because real ID cards can also be issued to non-citizens that have lawful status in the United States. So there are certain real ID compliant ID cards called EDLs or enhanced driver's licenses that explicitly do state citizenship, but standard real IDs do not. Only five states, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, and Washington offer EDLs, which, by the way, are offered at an additional fee. They are more expensive. Idaho also offers IDs with an optional citizenship marker, but it's unclear if those are real ID compliant.

So naturally the question is, well, are all real ID compliant IDs sufficient for purposes of registering to vote or are only EDLs sufficient? And the way that the law is written, it appears only EDLs would be sufficient. again, the law says you need either a passport or a, quote, form of ID issued consistent with the requirements of real ID that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States, end quote. So it mentions real ID, but it does include that caveat that the real ID has to indicate citizenship. So I have a real idea. As an example, it's a real ID compliant ID, but it doesn't state my citizenship status. It doesn't state my place of birth.

so if this bill becomes law, someone like me would have to show a passport or my regular ID, along with a birth certificate. Now, there are two other sections of this bill that we have to mention. The first is a section titled Process for Those Without Documentary Proof. And this is what it says. Quote, each state shall establish a process under which an applicant who cannot provide documentary proof of United States citizenship may, if the applicant says, signs in attestation under penalty of perjury that the applicant is a citizen of the United

States and eligible to vote in elections for federal office submit such other evidence to the appropriate state or local official demonstrating that the applicant is a citizen of the United States and such official shall make a determination as to whether the applicant has sufficiently established citizenship for purposes of registering to vote in elections. In other words, if this bill becomes law, each state will have to have. have to create a system for people who do not have official documents proving they are U.S. citizens. If someone signs a statement under penalty of perjury saying they are a U.S. citizen and they are eligible to vote in federal elections, they can submit other evidence of citizenship to state

or local officials, whatever that might be, whatever that looks like. And that official will then decide whether the person has provided enough proof to register to vote. But it is up to the state to come up with the system. So it would look different state to state. The other section of the bill worth mentioning is a section titled process in case of certain discrepancies in documentation, i.e. you've changed your name, so your photo ID and your birth certificate do not match. The bill says, quote, each state shall establish a process under which an applicant can provide such additional documentation to the appropriate election official of the state as may be necessary to establish that the applicant is a citizen of the United States in the event of a discrepancy

with respect to the applicant's documentary proof of United States citizenship. And quote. So the bill doesn't say exactly what these processes will look like because it's not up to the federal government. Per the constitution, the states have the authority to make these election rules. And yes, we will be talking about this authority in much more detail at Unbiased University. So that's why it's very important that you tune in to every episode. But what I want to leave you with is this. I want to leave you with four big takeaways from this whole discussion. We've talked about a lot.

And these four things will sum everything up. Number one, at this point, the Save America Act has only passed the House. And it's not looking like it has great odds of passing the Senate because of something called the cloture rule, which requires 60 votes to send the bill to a floor vote. Number two, the act requires documentary proof of citizenship to register in federal elections. a standard real ID compliant ID is not sufficient. It would have to be an EDL based on the text of the law, which is only offered in a handful of states, a passport or a regular photo ID with some other proof of citizenship. Three, the act requires states to figure out what happens when a person either doesn't have documentary proof of citizenship or when there's a discrepancy in documentation. And four, just a side note to keep in mind, if this bill becomes law, it would most likely, I'd even go as far as to say definitely, but I won't go that far, be challenged in the courts, which would mean it could take a while for something like this to be sorted out and finalized.

So that is the Save America Act. I feel like that was a much more comprehensive explanation than last week's explanation. I should have done that originally. That is my fault for not doing it. So I hope after this explanation, you feel more informed about it. Okay, second and final rumor. Rumor has it that two ICE agents lied under oath about the shooting of a Venezuelan man in Minneapolis last month. So here's one that I can neither confirm nor deny the truth of yet. But what I can tell you is that federal authorities are investigating the two agents that reportedly may have lied under oath. And DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin has said that it appears as if the agents did lie.

So this is what we know. Last Tuesday, Ice Director Todd Lyons said ICE had opened up a joint probe with the DOJ after video evidence revealed, quote, sworn testimony provided by two separate officers appears to have made untruthful statements. End quote. He noted that lying under oath is a serious federal offense and that the officers had been placed on leave pending the completion of the investigation. Now that update came one day after a federal judge ordered all charges dropped against two Venezuelan men, the two Venezuelan men at the center of all of this. So the charges were dismissed because the government actually filed a motion to dismiss the charges. That motion to dismiss stated that newly discovered evidence was materially inconsistent with the allegations made against the men in a criminal complaint and at a subsequent hearing that took place last month. Now, the motion to dismiss did not mention what new detail specifically had been discovered, but we know that at an earlier hearing, one of the ICE officers testified that he was assaulted by one of the men with a broom and a snow shovel. According to the attorneys representing the

men, one of the men did have a broomstick in his hand when he was approached by agents. He threw it at one of the agents as he ran away toward the house. And the other man had been holding a shovel, but was retreating into the house when the ice agent shot him in the leg. The attorney didn't say anything about the shovel being thrown at the ice agent or anything like that. But available video evidence does not support the agent's testimony that he was quote unquote assaulted with this broom and snow shovel. So the two ice agents are currently being investigated

and while we can't say with 100% certainty at this point whether they lied under oath, like I said, DHS secretary, Trisha McLaughlin did say it appears that is the case. And of course, once we, you know, know more, whether they've actually been fired or whatever, that is when we could more definitively say what actually happened here. And that is what I have for you. Now, before I go, I do want to leave you with some nonpartisan news recommendations. While I am on leave, I have heard your pleas, okay, so I am trying to help. I will give you a handful of recommendations. I'm not guaranteeing that you are going to find these people to be totally unbiased and neutral. Okay. These are sources that,

say they are nonpartisan and I personally think they do a great job when it comes to reporting. I follow all of these people. Doesn't mean they're perfect. But hey, not everyone can be as good at this as I am, okay? I'm just kidding. Just kidding. Although I do think I am pretty good at this. Okay.

First, first recommendation, Mo News. And the reason I'm putting him at the top of the list is because he is the most active, I would say. So you can always count on him to post about things quickly, especially to Instagram. He always has stories up on his Instagram, you know, explaining things that are happening almost in real time. He also has a daily news podcast that I think goes out at the end of the day, and he publishes articles to substack as well. So very active. Another one I would recommend is Roka News. You can follow them on socials, but they do also have a newsletter you can subscribe to as

well. I believe it's free. There's also Straight Arrow News, which is more of a media company than some of these independent sources I'm giving you, but they do have some pretty cool features when it comes to pinpointing and showcasing bias in mainstream media reporting. So that's that's always nice too. Ground news is another good one. And then Alexander Kellerman, he's on Instagram and substack. He reports on the news in more of a lighthearted and funny way. So again, those are my recommendations for you. I'm not promising you these sources are going to be completely unbiased, but they do a very good job at trying to maintain neutrality. And like I said, so many of you wanted recommendations for when I'm gone, those are the recommendations

that I have. Don't forget that Unbiased University officially starts on Monday. It is a series that you are going to want to tune into every episode. You are going to learn so much over these next couple of months. And as much as I'm going to miss you guys, I am really excited for this series. I have put so much into the series. I have put so much time into making these episodes. And my hope is that you not only enjoy them and obviously that you learn a ton, but if you do enjoy them, please share the series with everyone that you know and love. I think that our country could be much more knowledgeable and informed when it comes to, you know, basic things like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and presidential elections and all of these concepts we could just be so much

more knowledgeable about. So have a great next couple of. of months, I guess, and I'll be back on the mic again in April. That is just so sad yet so exciting at the same time. It's just very, very bittersweet. So yeah, I can't wait to be back with you.