UNBIASED - January 22, 2026: ICE Memo Authorizes Certain Warrantless Entries, 5-Year-Old Boy Detained, Minnesota Church Protesters Arrested, Trump's World Economic Forum Speech, and More.

Episode Date: January 22, 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: At Least Three Minnesota Church Protesters Charged; More Charges Possible (0:12) Whistleblowers Say ICE Memo Authorizes Certain Warrantless Home Entries (10:34) Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Trump vs. Cook (17:15) Trump Speaks at World Economic Forum; Here's What to Know (~26:17) DOJ Subpoenas Gov. Walz and Other Minnesota Officials as Part of Active Investigation (~33:30) Quick Hitters: House Panel Advances Resolution to Hold Clintons in Contempt, Former Special Counsel Jack Smith Testifies, Trump Sues JPMorgan Chase and Jamie Dimon, US and China Sign TikTok Deal (~38:15) Rumor Has It: Did ICE Detain a Five-Year-Old Boy in Minnesota? (~40:56) Critical Thinking Segment (~44:54) 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

Adobe Acrobat Studio, your new foundation. Use PDF spaces to generate a presentation. Grab your docs, your permits, your moves. AI levels of your pitch, gets it in a groove. Choose a template with your timeless cools those tools. Drive design, deliver, make it sing. AI builds the deck so you can build that thing. Learn more at Adobe.com slash do that with Acrobat.

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, January 22nd. Let's talk about some news. So we're going to start with this story about the Minneapolis church protesters. And then that'll segue us into this new internal ICE memo. It's actually not a new memo, but it is now in the news that apparently gives ICE the ability to enter. homes without a judicial warrant. So both stories kind of have to do with ICE. We'll use one to

segue into the other. On Sunday, protesters walked into a St. Paul church in Minnesota during an ongoing service over a pastor's possible role as an ICE lead. Now, notably the pastor in question, he was not present for Sunday's services. But despite that, protesters entered the church and started shouting things like justice for Renee Good, ice out, and shame on you. St. Paul police officers arrived to the church at about 10, 40 in the morning after receiving 30 to 40 calls that protesters had interrupted church services. But by the time the officers actually arrived on scene, the protesters had moved outside the church and they were headed down a nearby alley. In response to that protest, church leadership released a statement

that reads in part, quote, On Sunday, January 18th, a group of agitators jarringly disrupted our worship gathering. They accosted members of our congregation, frightened children, and created a scene marked by intimidation and threat. Such conduct is shameful, unlawful, and will not be tolerated. Invading a church service to disrupt the worship of Jesus or any other act of worship is protected by neither the Christian scriptures nor the laws of this nation. end quote. Then on Tuesday, so a couple days after the protest, the same protesters then went to the

Hinnapin County Government Center calling for the resignation of the pastor. So they were protesting there. And then most recently, as of today, the FBI said that it's arrested at least three people who were involved in Sunday's church protests, but the FBI did not go as far as to say what charges those three individuals were facing. Now, as far as how involved this pastor is with ICE, what we know is that the pastor's name is David Easterwood. And a man named David Easterwood is also the acting field office director for ICE in Minnesota. However, it has not yet been officially confirmed whether the acting director is the same David Easterwood listed as a pastor on the church. his website. The church did not deny it in their statement, but it has not been confirmed at this

point. So since then, the FBI announced the arrest of three individuals, and the DOJ's civil rights division said that it is looking into filing charges against additional protesters using two federal laws. So the freedom of access to clinic entrances act, better known as the Face Act, as well as the Ku Klux Klan Act or KKK Act. Keep in mind that at a high level, the DOJ does three kinds of work depending on which office is involved. So the role that most people are familiar with is the DOJ as a prosecutor. When it comes to criminal cases, DOJ attorneys decide whether charges should be filed. They decide what charges to bring. And they decide how to argue the case in court, right? The DOJ essentially acts as the government's lawyer.

But keep in mind that in that prosecutorial role, the prosecutors are not investigating the crimes themselves. They rely on evidence from the various law enforcement agencies and then prosecute accordingly. But then you have the DOJ as a civil rights enforcer. So the DOJ has a specific division called the Civil Rights Division. And through that office, the DOJ can investigate whether civil rights laws have been violated. So in its role as a civil rights enforcer, it plays more of an investigatory role than it does when it's only acting as a prosecutor. So in this specific case, in the church protest case, the DOJ Civil Rights Division is investigating whether the protesters' actions could have violated civil rights statutes, specifically the Face Act or KKK Act. And if the evidence supports it, DOJ prosecutors could then seek either criminal charges or civil remedies.

against those involved. And we now know they are seeking charges against at least some of the individuals involved. So let's talk about the two statutes in question here. First, the FACE Act. The FACE Act is a federal law that makes it illegal to use force, threats, or obstruction to stop someone from accessing or participating in certain protected activities. One of those protected activities is practicing religion. Now, peaceful protests, expressions of opinion, these things don't violate the face act. When a protest turns into interference, that's when you have a potential violation. So if someone, you know, blocks entrances or exits of a protected place or disrupts services inside a protected place to the point where people can't practice their religion or

uses force, threats, or intimidation against those inside or trying to enter or, you know, or exit a protected place. That is when we see a violation. So the main question here is, did the protesters interfere with people's ability to practice their religion through force, threats, or physical obstruction? And to get to that answer, the DOJ has to ask questions like, was access to the church actually interfered with? Did the protesters intimidate or obstruct churchgoers?

because again, entering a church and yelling chance, that's not automatically illegal. It becomes a legal issue only if the conduct interferes with worship through intimidation, threats, or physical obstruction. So that's the Face Act. Then there's the KKK Act. And this one is harder to apply than the Face Act because the KKK Act focuses more on group conspiracies that are meant to deny civil rights. So in order for the KKK Act to apply to the church protest scenario,

investigators would have to find evidence that, one, the group planned together, okay, rather than it being a spontaneous protest, two, that their purpose was to stop or punish people for exercising their religion. Three, that their conduct involved intimidation or coercion. And four, that their goal was to deny a civil. right, not just make a political statement. And here we know that the goal of the protest was to make a political statement against the pastor, you know, who they believe is an ICE lead. So they have to find that there was an actual goal here to deny a civil right and that that was a planned thing.

The KKK Act is very rarely used because it's not about offensive protest. It's about organized coordinated intimidation that is, again, designed to strip people of civil rights. So those are the two statutes that the DOJ says it's looking into when it comes to prosecuting those involved in the church protest. Again, I will say we do not know which charges specifically the three individuals are facing that have been charged. But a DOJ official did say prior to any charges being filed, that these were the two specific statutes that the DOJ was looking into for potential prosecutions. So that's what you need to know about that. One last thing to mention here about the Face Act specifically is this. So Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison went on

former CNN anchor Don Lemon's YouTube show to talk about the protest because Don Lemon was actually at the protest at the church on Sunday. And the attorney general implied during his appearance on Lemon Show that the Face Act only applies to the rights of people seeking reproductive assistance, like going to reproductive centers, which isn't true. It's true that the Face Act is best known for protecting reproductive health clinics, but the law protects both reproductive services, and religious freedom at places of worship. So what Ellison said on Don Lemon's show is, quote, and the Face Act, by the way, is designed to protect the rights of people seeking reproductive rights

so that people, for a religious reason, cannot just use religion to break into women's reproductive health centers. How they are stretching either of these laws to apply to people who protested in a church over the behavior or the perceived behavior of a religious leader is beyond me. but they don't mind stretching these days. End quote. And the thing is, he's not wrong in saying that the FACE Act was designed to protect the rights of people seeking reproductive health services, but he is wrong in saying it would be a stretch

to apply the FACE Act to a church protest. So just to be very clear here, the FACE Act applies to, yes, reproductive centers, but also places of worship. The FACE Act was primarily motivated by obstruction. at abortion clinics in the early 90s, which is why it's called the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. But the actual text of the law, if you look at this statutory text, it prohibits obstruction at not only reproductive health centers, but also places of religious worship. So I just want to make that clear because it's actually not a stretch to apply this law in that sense.

Okay. So sticking with the topic of ICE, let's talk about this new internal memo that says ICE agents do not need a judicial warrant to enter someone's home. And I have told you guys in the past that ICE agents are only allowed to enter your home without your consent if they have a judicial warrant signed by a judge. An administrative warrant is not enough. But according to this new whistleblower disclosure, there was a May 2025 internal DHS memo that told ICE agents they are allowed to enter an individual's home, even if they only have an administrative warrant. So let's walk through this. Two whistleblowers have come forward. They filed an anonymous whistleblower disclosure with Congress. And in that disclosure, they said that a May 12th,

2025 memo written by acting ICE director Todd Lyons, authorizes ICE agents to forcibly enter into certain people's homes without a judicial warrant, consent, or an emergency. So that memo reads, quote, although the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has not historically relied on administrative warrants alone to arrest aliens subject to final orders of removal in their place of residence, the DHS Office of General Counsel has recently determined that the U.S. Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the immigration regulations do not prohibit relying on administrative warrants for this purpose. Accordingly, in light of this legal determination, ICE immigration officers may arrest and detain aliens, subject to a final order of removal issued by an immigration judge, the Board of Immigration Appeals, or a U.S. District Court judge or magistrate judge,

in their place of residence. It goes on to say, before entering a residence, pursuant to form I-205, ICE officers and agents must knock and announce. In announcing, officers and agents must state their identity and purpose. Following announcement, officers and agents must allow those inside the residence a reasonable chance to act lawfully. Should the alien refuse admittance, ICE officers and agents should only use necessary and reasonable force to enter the aliens residence following proper notification of the officers or agents authority and intent to enter. ICE officers and agents must not effectuate an arrest in a third-party residence without consent, exigency, or a judicial warrant to enter the third-party residence.

End quote. So basically the memo is authorizing ICE agents to, rely on what is called a form I-205, otherwise known as an administrative warrant of removal or deportation, to enter the residence of a person in the United States illegally if that person is subject to a final order of deportation. Okay. It does carve out an exception for third-party residences. So this only applies to the actual residence of the person in question. But the big question here is, is this legal? When you look at existing Supreme Court precedent, this interpretation does not really hold up constitutionally, and this is why. The Fourth Amendment

is what protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement cannot enter a private home without either a judicial warrant signed by a judge or consent unless certain emergency exceptions apply. So if there's an immediate danger to life, you know, if there's a risk of immediate destruction of evidence or law enforcement is pursuing a fleeing suspect, those are all exceptions. But under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement cannot enter a private home without either a judicial warrant or consent. So under the Fourth Amendment for an ICE agent to enter someone's home without their

consent, they either need a judicial warrant, consent, or the presence of a true emergency. And naturally, your next question is probably, okay, but does that apply to non-citizens? And the answer is yes. The thing about the Fourth Amendment is that it protects the people, not just the citizens of the United States. The Supreme Court has held that the home gets the highest level of Fourth Amendment protection and that that protection applies regardless of citizenship or immigration status. A final order of deportation or removal doesn't change that either.

What a final order gives ICE the ability to do is detain and deport someone, but it does not override the constitutional protections of the Fourth Amendment and allow ICE just to enter someone's home without either their consent or assigned judicial warrant. And by the way, the new memo acknowledges that the DHS, has not historically relied on administrative warrants to arrest aliens that are subject to final orders of removal in their place of residence. The memo says that this is a policy shift that came after a recent determination by the DHS Office of General Counsel. But a determination from the DHS Office of General Counsel doesn't override Supreme Court precedent or constitutional protections.

So while the memo only authorizes ICE to enter the homes of aliens, subject. to final deportation orders and not U.S. citizens, it does appear to conflict with longstanding Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Fourth Amendment. And one last thing that's important to understand here is what happens when an agency like the DHS issues a directive like this that appears to conflict with the Constitution. So first and foremost, an internal memo like this does not change the law, right? It changes how the agency plans to act. If the agency acts on the policy and the policy is subsequently challenged, that is when courts determine whether it can stand. But the policy has to be acted on to be challenged and it has to be challenged for a court to review

it. And until that happens, the policy can remain in effect, even if its legality is in question. All right, moving on. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case called Trump versus Cook. And we'll keep this one short. But basically, President Trump attempted to fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors. And so far, the lower courts have blocked Trump's attempt to fire her. But Trump has since gone to the Supreme Court asking the justices to put the lower court rulings on hold. while the appeal plays out. So the Federal Reserve, sometimes just called the Fed, is the central bank of the United States, right? And the issue in this case centers around the fact that the Fed is an independent agency. And the Fed is actually different than most agencies

in that it's funded primarily through the interest it earns on securities that it owns, rather than through taxpayer dollars and the normal congressional appropriations process. But under the Federal Reserve Act, members of the Fed's Board of Governors are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate for 14-year terms. Per the law, members of the Board of Governors can only be removed by the president and only for cause. But the thing is, the law doesn't tell us what for cause means. It doesn't define

for cause. If we look at other statutes, for cause typically requires a showing of inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance of office. So something objectively wrong with how a federal official is doing their job. Serious misconduct, corruption, abuse of authority, failure to perform their duties, illegal actions, incompetence, et cetera, et cetera. What doesn't qualify as cause are things like policy disagreements, political differences, controversial decisions, etc. Now, when Trump fired Cook, he cited allegations that Cook had committed mortgage fraud before joining the Fed. More specifically that within this two-week span, she designated both a house in Michigan and a condo in Atlanta as her primary residence when taking out loans.

and by designating the properties as primary residences, she would have received more favorable loan terms. But Trump says that this is fraud because you can't have two primary residences. And the alleged fraud, Trump says, exhibits gross negligence in financial transactions that calls into question her competence and trustworthiness as a financial regulator. So that is his cause, right? cook however has denied the accusations of mortgage fraud she says she is prepared to refute the allegations in in in a quote appropriate forum so keep in mind cook has never been charged with mortgage fraud let alone found found guilty okay so when she was fired over these allegations of mortgage fraud she sued the the administration arguing that her removal was not for proper cause and the district

court ruled in her favor, the Trump administration then asked the district court judge to put the ruling on hold while it appealed the case. But the district court judge refused to do so. So the administration then went to the appellate court and asked it to do the same, but the appellate court also refused to do so. So finally, the administration went to the Supreme Court asking the justices to pause the lower court ruling while the appeal plays out. And those were the arguments that the court heard on Wednesday. Now, technically, the Supreme Court justices are being asked to decide whether to pause the lower court ruling or leave that ruling in place while the appeal plays out. But a key consideration in determining whether to grant this kind of relief is to look at the

success, sorry, the likelihood of success of the merits of the claims. So in deciding whether to grant the administration, the relief that they're seeking, the justices, also have to look at the strength of the administration's underlying case, including whether the president's attempt to remove Cook was lawful. So while on paper, the court is just simply deciding whether to put the lower court ruling on hold, that decision hinges on how the justices feel about the president's authority to fire her in the first place. Overall, it seems as if the justices are not going to grant the administration, the relief that it's looking for because a majority of the justices did seem ready to reject the administration's

argument that, you know, Cook's firing was within Trump's lawful authority. But just so we're all on the same page, from here, the justices can do a couple of different things. They can say, look, we're not going to pause the lower court's ruling because we don't think the administration is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim. But we're going to let this battle play out in the appellate court. And if it makes it back to us on appeal, great. We'll consider handling the merits of the case then. Or the justices could say, hey, look, we're just going to step in here and we're going to say that, you know, allegations of misconduct do not meet the forecause requirement and this case is over. Cook can keep her job and we're done here. And they would just kind of settle the case.

So there's really two different avenues that the justices can take here. We could get that ruling as soon as the next couple of weeks. It could also be closer to May or June. We'll just have to see. Let's take our first and only break of the episode here. And when we come back, we'll talk about what's going on at the World Economic Forum. We'll also talk about the DOJ subpoena for Governor Walls and other Minnesota officials. And then we'll finish with quick hitters, rumor has it, and critical thinking. Welcome back. All eyes are on the World Economic Forum this week. So let's talk about it and specifically talk about why all eyes are on it. So first and foremost, the World Economic Forum is an international nonprofit that brings leaders and CEOs and a bunch of other people

together to address global issues. But it's most known for this annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, which is what's taking place this week, though the bulk of the programming took place over the course of Wednesday and Thursday. The forum tends to attract attention every year just because it's the biggest conference of high power individuals and leaders from all sectors. Roughly 3,000 of the most powerful leaders, CEOs, billionaires, and tech leaders all come together and they talk about the economy and war and AI and power and all these things. This year, though, the reason everyone's talking about it is because Trump used the forum to further his push for Greenland.

So as we know, President Trump has been pretty clear that the United States should and must have Greenland for both national and global security. And this is something he's been talking about since 2019, but he's obviously talking about it again now that he's in office again. Other world leaders, though, disagree. So just to give you some context about what was happening leading up to the forum, Trump had threatened a 10% tariff against eight European countries who oppose his stance on Greenland. That threat was recently redacted, actually. And I'll, I'll be. be publishing an in-depth article on that to Substack either tonight or tomorrow. So let this be a reminder to subscribe to Unbiased Society on Substack. But after Trump initially threatened those tariffs,

the European Commission President and European Council President issued a statement where they basically said that, you know, territorial integrity and sovereignty are fundamental principles of international law, that they've consistently underlined their shared transatlantic interests in peace and security in the Arctic, including through NATO, and that the EU stands in full solidarity with Denmark and the people of Greenland, and Europe remains committed to upholding Greenland sovereignty. So in light of that sort of those developments, Trump announcing tariffs, and then the statement from the European countries coming out, Trump's speech in Davos was a highly anticipated one. And throughout his speech, he spoke about various things. He spoke about the U.S. economy, highlighting what he described as a major economic turnaround under his administration. He spoke about foreign policy and criticized what he called decades-old Western economic consensus focused on large government spending, mass immigration, and heavy imports. He touched a little bit on energy policy, criticizing renewable energy trends. And then he, of course, spoke a lot about Greenland. And he reached.

reiterated his stance that the U.S. should seek ownership or control of Greenland and emphasized negotiating for control. And he stated that his desire for Greenland isn't about anything other than strategic, national, and international security. So he did mention the rare earths and the minerals that are in Greenland. He said it's not about that. It's just about strategic national and international security. At one point, he said, quote, it's the United States alone. that can protect this giant mass of land, this giant piece of ice, develop it and improve it and make it so it's good for Europe and safe for Europe and good for us. And that's the reason I'm seeking immediate negotiations to once again discuss the acquisition of Greenland by the United

States, just as we have acquired many other territories throughout our history. And all we're asking for is to get Greenland, including right, title, and ownership, because you need the ownership to defend it. You can't defend it on a lease. Number one, legally, it's not defensible that way totally. And number two, psychologically, who the hell wants to defend a license agreement or a lease, which is a large piece of ice in the middle of the ocean, where if there is a war, much of the action will take place on that piece of ice. End quote. He also talked generally about not using force. He was actually talking about NATO and the fact that NATO countries are paying more under his leadership than they were before.

and he said, quote, I got NATO to pay 5%. And now they're paying. So something nobody said was possible. They said, we will never go up higher than 2%, but they went to 5%. And now they're paying the 5. We never asked for anything and we never got anything. We probably won't get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force where we would be, frankly, unstoppable.

But I won't do that. Okay. Now everyone's saying, oh, good, that's probably the biggest statement I made because people thought I would use force, but I don't have to use force. I don't want to use force. I won't use force. All the United States is asking for is a place called Greenland. And quote, so that was really the general gist of his speech. And then shortly after that speech, he announced on True Social that he had formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland. So he wrote, quote, based upon a very productive meeting that I have had with the Secretary General of NATO, we have

form the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic region. This solution, if consummated, will be a great one for the United States of America and all NATO nations. Based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1st. Additional discussions are being held concerning the Golden Dome as it pertains to Greenland. Further information will be made available as discussions progress. Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, special envoy Steve Whitkoff, and various others as needed will be responsible for the negotiations. They will report directly to me. End quote.

When the Secretary General of NATO was pressed during an interview on Fox News about the details of the reported framework, he just simply said that the U.S. forcibly taking control of Greenland from Denmark was not discussed during their meeting. and that Trump is, quote, very much focused on what we need to do to make sure that that huge Arctic region where changes taking place at the moment where the Chinese and Russians are more and more active, how we can protect that. That was really the focus of our discussions. End quote. But he didn't really offer any details.

And so as much as I've told you is as much as we know as far as the specifics of this reported framework. But of course, once we know more, I will fill you in. And again, if you want to know more about that tariff threat, that was also. ultimately revoked, be sure to subscribe to my substack because I will be publishing in in-depth article shortly after this podcast episode goes out. And you can always find the link to my sub-sab in the show notes of every episode or just simply search on biased society on substack. Okay, moving on. On Tuesday, the DOJ served various Minnesota officials with subpoenas.

These officials include Governor Wals, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Fry, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and St. Paul Mayor Cully Her. The subpoenas are part of an ongoing investigation by the Trump administration, which is reportedly centered around whether these officials have conspired to impede ICE immigration enforcement amid the administration's immigration crackdown. Now, of course, what precedes this investigation is the shooting of Renee Good and very subsequent statements made by Minnesota officials calling for ICE to leave the state. I do want to say at the beginning, we really don't know much about exactly what the DOJ is investigating so far based on what's been reported. It seems like the investigation is centered around

the various public statements that have been made by these officials calling for ICE to leave. But we don't know if there's more to this than that. Here's what I will say, though, if that is all there is. If all the DOJ has is public statements, and that's what they're using to say that, you know, these individuals have conspired to impede ICE immigration enforcement, those statements are generally protected by the First Amendment, unless, of course, those statements rise to fighting words or incitement or a true threat, then they wouldn't be protected. But to rise to the level of a criminal conspiracy, the DOJ would have to find evidence of some sort of agreement between two or more of these officials where they agreed to unlawfully impede immigration

enforcement. And again, we don't know the exact law or laws the DOJ is using as the basis for the investigation, but some sources have said the primary statute being used is conspiracy to impede or injure an officer. And that's actually the same statute that was. used against some of the people who were charged in connection with January 6th. It basically makes it unlawful for two or two or more people to conspire, to use force intimidation or threats to stop a U.S. official from performing their duties or to harm them because of those duties. So again, if that is the statute being used as the basis for the DOJ's investigation here,

the DOJ is looking for evidence that these officials in Minnesota, agreed with one another that they would use force intimidation or threats to stop ICE from carrying out their immigration enforcement actions. We know that the subpoenas that were issued demanded eight categories of documents from each of the officials, including all records and communications issued by their offices since January 1st related to federal immigration enforcement in Minnesota. any communications related to the lack of cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, and any directives issued to Minnesota residents concerning their interactions with immigration officers. The subpoena sent to Mayor Fry's office specifically ordered the ordered Fries office custodian of records

to appear for testimony on February 3rd, but it's unclear if the other subpoenas included similar testimony orders. And just as a quick refresher, a subpoena is an order that requires an individual or an organization, but in this case an individual, to provide testimony or documentation that can ultimately be used as evidence in a legal proceeding or a congressional hearing or, you know, a court case, something of that nature. The subpoenas that we're talking about here are called grand jury subpoenas. So what happens is federal prosecutors, typically from the DOJ, will issue a subpoena on the grand jury's behalf, even if the grand jury never voted on it or approved it. And then once the evidence is received through that subpoena, the grand jury will review the evidence and hear the testimony. And from there, the grand jury will decide whether there's probable cause of a crime to indict those individuals. So that's what's happening here. The DOJ requested various documents and testimony through these subpoenas.

Those documents and testimony will be presented to a grand jury, and the grand jury will review it and then decide if there's enough evidence of a crime, presumably, you know, of conspiracy to impede an officer to indict some or all of these officials. Okay, let's do some quick hitters. The House Oversight Committee voted to advance resolutions to hold former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. in contempt of Congress over their refusal to appear for depositions. So we did cover the story last week. I mentioned that the House committee was going to be voting on whether to advance a resolution to hold them in contempt. And we now know that they did in fact do that and both resolutions advanced, which means the full House floor will now have to vote on whether to find both Clintons in contempt. The panel voted 34 to 8 to advance the resolution holding bill

Clinton in contempt with nine Democrats joining 25 Republicans and three Democrats joined 25 Republicans on the measure holding Hillary in contempt, bringing the total vote on that measure to 28 to 15. And speaking of Congress, former special counsel, Jack Smith, publicly testified before the House Judiciary Committee today about his investigations into President Trump. Smith told lawmakers that he stands by his decisions and that as a prosecutor he had no partisan loyalties. One of the most notable moments from Smith's testimony is when he was asked about obtaining cell phone metadata of Republican members of Congress during his investigation, which is, of course, a move that Republican lawmakers have highly criticized. And Smith responded that it was a quote-unquote

common move to, you know, pull such information when investigating a conspiracy case. President Trump has filed a lawsuit against J.P. Morgan Chase and its CEO Jamie Diamond, alleging they improperly dropped him as a client in 2021 for political reasons. The lawsuit says the bank notified Trump and his various businesses that it would be closing their bank accounts in February 2021 and that Trump, his family and various businesses were placed on a blacklist by the bank. The suit alleges that placement on the blacklist was authorized by Diamond and that being placed on that blacklist led to other banks not, led other banks not to deal with Trump and the others. The lawsuit is seeking $5 billion in damages. And the United States and China have reportedly

signed off on a deal that would hand control of TikTok's U.S. arm to a group of investors led by tech company Oracle and investment firm Silver Lake. As part of the agreement, TikTok will be operated in the U.S. by a joint venture. And as of the time I'm recording this episode, that is all we know as of, you know, right now, but more details are expected soon. And now it's time for rumor has it, my weekly segment where I address rumors submitted by all of you and either confirm them, dispel them, and or add context. Today we have won. Rumor has it that a five-year-old boy was detained by ICE. This is true. We do not know with 100% certainty, the events that led up to this detention. So the DHS has released a statement sharing their

side of the story. And the attorney for the family of the five-year-old boy has also made a statement. And I will, of course, share both of those statements with you. But first and foremost, the child's name is Liam Ramos. He was reportedly detained by federal agents as he and his father were arriving home from the school day. The father is allegedly in the process of seeking asylum. But again, were not exactly sure what led to his detention. The attorney for the family said that the family has followed the law as they're seeking asylum to become legal U.S. citizens. And the attorney also said that he's working to bring Liam back home to his family in Minnesota. The DHS said in its own statement, in part, quote,

On January 20th, ICE conducted a targeted operation to arrest Adrian Alexander, Knoahoe arias. As agents approached the driver, he fled on foot abandoning his child. For the child's safety, one of our ICE officers remained with the child while the other officers apprehended Konejo Arias. Our officers made multiple attempts to get the mother inside the house to take custody of her child. Officers even assured her that they would not take her into custody. She refused to accept custody of the child. The father told officers he wanted the child to remain with him. Our officer's primary concern during the entire operation was the safety and welfare of the child. Following the mother's abandonment of the child, officers abided by the father's wishes to keep the child with him.

Father and son are together at Dilley, which is an ICE facility in Texas. And then it says parents are asked if they want to be removed with their children or ICE will place the children with a safe person the parent designates. This is consistent with past administration's immigration enforcement. And then, so ICE responded to a user on X who accused the agency of detaining the five-year-old innocent child to use as quote-unquote bait. And ICE wrote in response to that quote, you're lying for clicks yet again. Ice did not and has never used a child as bait. The child was abandoned. And then it goes on to repeat what happened on January 20th, which is the targeted operation to arrest the child's father, who ICE says is an illegal alien from Ecuador.

And as agents approached the driver, he fled on foot, abandoning his child. So for the child's safety, one of the ICE officers remained with the child while the father was apprehended. We have also heard from the superintendent of the school district in the neighborhood where the boy lives. And she said that there was another adult living in the home that was outside when all of this happened and begged the agents to let them take care of the child. but was refused. The superintendent also accused ICE agents of leading the boy to the front door of the home and telling the boy to knock on the door in order to see if anyone else was home, which the superintendent said was essentially using the five-year-old as bait.

So again, we don't know a lot with 100% certainty right now. You have the DHS and ICE saying one thing. You have a superintendent saying another thing. You have the family for the attorney saying another thing. So the only facts we really know is certainty are that number. number one, the five-year-old is currently being detained with his father at a facility in Texas, and two, the boy's mother was not detained by ICE. Okay.

For today's critical thinking segment, we're going to say on the topic of this five-year-old being detained. I have two questions for all of you, regardless of where you stand on the issue. The first question is this. If another adult in the house was present and willing to take custody, what standards should ICE use to accept or reject that option? In other words, what kind of relationship should the person need to have to the child for ICE to leave the child with them? Could it be anyone, you know, any adult, could it be younger than an adult? Does it have to be a parent? Could it be any relative? And then why? What's your justification for that standard? And then on a related note,

if you were the ICE agent or any law enforcement officer for that matter and you were presented with this same situation, what would you have done? So assume the father fled on foot with the child still in the car, assume someone was at the house offering to take care of the child, assume the father requested the child come with him, assuming all of this things, what would you have done in that situation? And there are no wrong answers here, by the way. This is, really just to get you thinking. That is what I have for you. Thank you so much for being here. As always, I do have a new newsletter going out tomorrow morning. I know a lot of you won't be listening to this until tomorrow morning, but you can always subscribe to the substack anyway. The newsletter goes out once a

week. And you can, again, find the substack link in the show notes or just search unbiased society on substack and subscribe that way. I hope you have a fantastic weekend and I will talk to you on Monday.