UNBIASED - January 29, 2026: New Alex Pretti Video Footage, a Potential Government Shutdown, Updates in Minneapolis, an FBI Investigation Into Signal Chats, and More.

Episode Date: January 29, 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: Updates Since the Alex Pretti Shooting: DHS Gives Congress Initial Shooting Report; Agents Who Fired Weapons Placed on Leave; Lawmakers Threatening to Impeach Noem; Bovino Out in Minneapolis, Homan In; New Video Footage of Pretti from Two Weeks Before Shooting (~0:15) FBI Investigating Signal Group Chats in Minneapolis (~19:13) Potential Government Shutdown; Why Democratic Lawmakers Are Blocking DHS Funding (~25:39) Man Arrested After Spraying Rep. Ilhan Omar with Substance at Town Hall Event (~31:34) Judge Prohibits Administration from Deporting Liam Ramos and Father (~40:53) Quick Hitters: Search Warrant Executed at Fulton County Elections Office, Rubio Testifies Before Senate About Venezuela, Trump Launches 'Trump Accounts' for Kids (~48:08) Rumor Has It: Is ICE Going to the Olympics? Did Border Czar Tom Homan Receive an Award From Obama for His Deportation Efforts? (~50:26) Critical Thinking Segment (~53:30) 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, January 29th. Let's talk about some news. We've got a lot to cover today, so let's just get right into it. We will start the episode with some developments related to the Alex Pretty shooting. And there are quite a few, so we'll kind of just bounce from one to the next. And I'll just kind of, I'll attempt to explain these in chronological order, but there's just been so much happening since Monday's episode that everything kind of gets meshed together. So first, let's talk about the DHS preliminary report. On Tuesday, the DHS shared this preliminary report on the Alex Pretty shooting with Congress based on an

initial investigation that was done by the CBP's Office of Professional Responsibility. And in completing that investigation, the Office of Professional Responsibility basically relied on body cam footage as well as available documentation. Now, remember, the CBP is an agency within the DHS, right? So the DHS oversees the CBP and any internal offices within the CBP, including the office of professional responsibility. So that's why it was the DHS that shared this report with Congress. Now, the report has not been released to the public, but it has been seen by various news outlets. and these various news outlets have reported on its contents. So per those reports, the initial investigation found that CBP agents were conducting a targeted

operation when they encountered Preti. An officer asked Preddy and another woman in the road to, quote, move out of the roadway. When they both didn't move, the officer deployed his pepper spray towards both individuals. Officers then attempted to take Prattie into custody, Prety resisted their efforts, which then resulted in a subsequent struggle on the ground. The report states that while Prattie was on the ground, a Border Patrol agent yelled, quote, he's got a gun multiple times, though the report does not state that Prattie ever showed his gun, you know, or like brandished his gun, as was initially reported by DHS Secretary Nome.

Roughly five seconds after the Border Patrol agent yelled that Prattie had a gun, Two agents discharged firearms at Preddy, one of whom was a Border Patrol agent with a CBP issued Glock 19. The other was a CBP agent with a CBP issued Glock 47. The report found that after the shooting, a Border Patrol agent advised that he had possession of Preddy's firearm and that it was cleared and secured in the agent's vehicle. Now, a few things the report doesn't mention. Number one, it does not mention an accidental discharge from Prettie's weapon, which, as we just said, had been confiscated by another agent just seconds before the shooting. I know there were talks of that possibly being the case. They're potentially being an accidental discharge that then caused the agents to fire at Preddy, but none of that was mentioned in the report.

Two, the report does not say how many shots were fired or which shots killed Prattie. And three, the report does not state whether the officers that fired the shots knew Prattie had been disarmed when those shots were fired. So that's the gist of the preliminary report. And again, this is just a preliminary report that is based on an initial investigation. So it's not going to detail everything. That'll likely take some time. The next development is that the agents that fire their weapons have since been placed on administrative leave. So according to a CBP spokesperson, the move is standard protocol. And this spokesperson said it shouldn't be viewed as any suspicion of wrongdoing. DHS spokesperson Trisha McLaughlin also confirmed that the ICE officer who shot

and killed Renee Good has also been placed on administrative leave. So administrative leave is essentially a temporary leave of absence from duties, but you're still entitled to pay and benefits. It's not until the investigation progresses that the agency will then determine whether those agents are brought back or they face further action. Obviously, if that investigation finds violations of policy or protocol, then the agents would be removed from service. But if the investigation finds no wrongdoing, you know, no protocol violations, then they would likely be able to return. turn to work. The next development is that Democratic lawmakers are threatening to impeach DHS Secretary Nome. So we'll start with a little backstory and then we'll talk a little bit about impeachment and what

that would entail and what it would mean for Nome's position. Earlier this month in the wake of the Renee Good shooting, Democratic representative Robin Kelly introduced three articles of impeachment against Nome. One of those articles was, or I should say cited obstruction of Congress. the second cited violation of the public trust and the third cited self-dealing. Since their introduction and more so since the Alex Party shooting, more lawmakers have signed on. More than 160 House Democrats have signed on to the impeachment resolution. And on Tuesday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic Whip, Catherine Clark, and Democratic caucus chair Pete Aguilar released this joint statement that basically said,

secretary gnome should be fired immediately and if she wasn't fired they would commence impeachment proceedings. And I should note here that it's not just Democrats that are calling for for Noem's termination. I mean, it's mostly Democrats. But there are a few Republicans too. Republican senators Tom Tillis and Lisa Murkowski have both issued statements stating that Noam's actions in Minnesota warrant her immediate removal from the president's cabinet. So following this criticism, the president held a meeting at the White House with Secretary Nome, along with Nome's top aid, the White House chief of staff, the press secretary, and the communications director. We don't know exactly what was discussed at that meeting. But when Trump was asked by reporters whether Nome would step down, he replied, quote, no, I think she's doing a very good job. The border is totally secure. You know, you forget we had a border that I in hand.

where millions of people were coming through. Now we have a border where no one is coming through. They come into our country only legally. End quote. So as of right now, it does not seem like Noam is going to be fired, which presumably means, according to these democratic lawmakers, that impeachment proceedings will commence. So let's talk a little bit about what impeachment would look like, starting with the basics. Under the Constitution, the House has the sole power to charge a federal officer with impeachment, right? The impeachment process applies to what the Constitution refers to as civil officers, which includes executive branch officials, judges, the president, the vice president. And typically when the process starts when articles of impeachment are drafted, the articles of

impeachment lay out the specific allegations or the specific charges that are being brought against the official facing impeachment. Once the articles are drafted, the full House can vote on them. And the reason I'm emphasizing can is because if the majority party or House leadership decides not to move forward on the articles of impeachment, impeachment just simply doesn't happen. There's no constitutional requirement that allegations automatically result in a House vote. So even though articles of impeachment against Nome have been drafted, if House leadership doesn't allow them to move forward, then it's done. But let's assume for the sake of the discussion that the articles do move forward and

reach the House floor. If a simple majority of the House votes yes on any one of the articles, in Nome's case, there are three, then that's it. The official is impeached. Nome would be impeached if a simple majority of the House voted yes on any one of the three articles against her. But impeachment doesn't automatically remove someone from their position. removal only happens if the Senate votes to convict.

So once the House votes, assuming at least one article passes, the Senate then holds a trial on the articles that passed. Once that trial ends, senators vote. And conviction requires a two-thirds majority. It's a pretty high bar. If the Senate doesn't reach that threshold, the official is acquitted and they stay in office. It's only if a person is convicted that they're not. are removed from their position. So applying this to Nome situation, now that the articles of impeachment have been introduced, House leadership will decide whether to send the articles to a full House vote.

If they don't, nothing happens. It ends there. But if they do, the House will vote on impeachment. And only after that would the Senate become involved for a potential conviction. Okay. Next development, Border Patrol commander Greg Bovino is no longer in Minneapolis. and instead Borders R. Tom Homan has been sent in. So Bovino was in Minneapolis leading the immigration enforcement operation there. He himself is a Border Patrol commander, but he had been put in charge of Operation Metro Surge, which is the operation currently taking in Minneapolis. And in that role, he oversaw not only the agents, but also, you know, the raids and the

patrols that would take place there. However, because of the consequences. controversy and criticism following the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pruddy. The administration went ahead and pulled him out of Minneapolis and replaced him with border czar Tom Holman. Now Tom Holman, many people don't realize, led the ICE deportation efforts under Obama. He was also the acting director of ICE during Trump's first term, but he now serves as the border czar under Trump's current administration. Homan held his first press conference. today since being in Minneapolis. And he revealed a few things. So for one, he said that he has

ordered officials from CBP and ICE to start working on a plan to reduce the number of federal agents in Minnesota, but that the execution of that plan is dependent on cooperation from local law enforcement. Cooperation meaning local jails notifying ICE about detainees that are eligible for removal. That is the way that it was done when Obama was in office. That's also the way that it's done in red states. So right now, obviously there's a bit of a cooperation issue between the administration and blue states. This is something we've been hearing about for months now where blue states or local law enforcement and state law enforcement in these blue states are not necessarily wanting to comply with ICE. But in past administrations,

that's typically what happens. There is this agreement between ICE and local law enforcement that allows them to work together. It's a specific federal agreement. And so far in Trump's current administration, we haven't seen that cooperation. So basically what Holman is saying is we need you guys to cooperate. If we see cooperation, then that is when we will execute on this plan to reduce the number of federal agents in Minneapolis. And Homan's position is that this type of. of cooperation is a much safer route and reduces the need for agents on the street. In this same press conference, Homan also acknowledged that things have not gone perfectly, but said the administration would not be backing down from its immigration mission,

just that the administration is going to be doing it smarter. And we'll talk a little bit more about Tom Homan in the rumor has its segment at the end of this episode because I know some of you had had some questions about his work in the Obama administration. But the final development that we need to cover is this new video footage of Alex Prattie from a couple of weeks ago. The video was apparently taken on January 13th and it shows Prattie confronting ICE agents appearing to spit at their vehicle and yell at the officers as they were leaving this area in Minneapolis. As the agents were driving away, Prattie then kicks out the taillight of the agent's SUV. The agent stopped the car. They get out of the car. They tackle

Prattie to the ground. There are about five officers that are restraining him. Pretty was not arrested. As a result, he did walk away from the scene, but it has been reported that he fractured his rib in that encounter. Now, I will say it is unclear what took place before that recording started. The recording starts with Alex Prattie yelling at the officers, you know, through their vehicle. Now, many people have said this video is not real and that it's AI. So what I will say is that Preti's family's attorney has confirmed that Prattie is the man in the video. The attorney said in a statement, quote, a week before Alex was gunned down in the street, despite posing no threat to anyone, he was violently assaulted by a group of ICE agents. Nothing that happened a full week, a full week before could

possibly have justified Alex's killing at the hands of ice on January 24th, end quote. And a representative for the family also said that they had been aware of that incident, that earlier incident, and that Prattie did sustain injuries, but that he did not get medical care. And then there was also a witness on the scene that told the Minnesota Star Tribune that pretty hard, end quote, got slammed to the ground pretty hard, end quote. So that video is not AI. it has been confirmed as real by not only the family but also the family's attorney. As far as whether this video changes anything legally, not really. So if you remember we talked about in Monday's episode, law enforcement can only use deadly force.

If at the moment deadly force is used, there is a reasonable belief of imminent threat of death or serious bodily injuries. So in earlier altercation by itself cannot be used to justify deadly force later, especially if the agents involved in the earlier incident were not the same agents who ultimately fired their guns. It's true that courts will look at the totality of the circumstances when they're assessing the use of force, but that doesn't necessarily mean earlier unrelated incidents justify deadly force later. The only way this new video footage could affect things is, is if the agent who fired the fatal shot, you know, last weekend, knew at the time that Prattie had previously been involved in a confrontation and believed that history contributed to

an imminent threat in the moment. But even then, it wouldn't automatically justify using deadly force. It would just be one factor that a court might consider. Legally speaking, the focus of the inquiry, you know, it still comes back to the same question. What did the officer reasonably believe was happening at the exact moment that the trigger was pulled? Okay, we'll take our first break here. When we come back, we'll talk about this FBI investigation into signal chats, a potential government shutdown, and more. Welcome back. FBI director Cash Patel announced that the Bureau is investigating encrypted group chats on the signal app that protesters use to track the movement of immigration agents in Minnesota.

So this is what happened. Benny Johnson, he's the host of the conservative Benny Johnson show. He interviewed this independent reporter on his show named Cam Higby. Higby describes himself as an on the ground reporter and Pentagon correspondent. And on the day of the Alex Pready shooting, Higby shared what appears to be a screen recording of a group chat on the signal app with hundreds, if not thousands of, of, members. And along with that screen recording, Higby wrote, quote, I have infiltrated organizational signal groups all around Minneapolis with the sole intention of tracking down federal agents and

impeding, assaulting, and obstructing them. Buckle up, all will be revealed. Each area of the city has a signal or several signals. Let's start with a screen recording of all members of the Southside group to start. End quote. So following that post, Benny Johnson had Higby on his show. And basically what Johnson and Higbee were alleging is that officials within Minnesota, well, actually, Benny Johnson was more so alleging that officials within Minnesota's government or quote unquote power infrastructure, as, as he called it, are giving state resources to these signal chats. According to Johnson, these and Higby kind of corroborated this as well. Higby wasn't really as focused on like the government officials being appointed.

part of this as much as he was just kind of describing what is what's involved in these chats and what these people are saying in the chats. So Higby was saying that the chats tell people where ice is a is is, uh, is at at any given time. And it allows people to track ice down and prevent them from enforcing the law. So Higby claims that Alex Pretty was one of the group chat members. He says Preddy was, quote, identified as being in it by several members of the network as well as his neighbor. Higby also said that Renee Good was probably in the chat. And his justification for that claim is that both Pretti and Renee Good engaged in the exact tactics that the people are taught to engage in in this group chat. So this is basically, you know, this is what the chat is

according to Higby. Higby also said that there are some reporters that are part of this chat that use the chat to find out where ICE activity is at any given time. Now, the original chat that Higby wrote about in his tweet after the pretty shooting has since been removed from the app, but according to Higby, a new chat has been started. So on the podcast, Higby showed some of the messages that were coming in real time as he was being interviewed. And Higby, he was being interviewed. And Higby, said, quote, they're calling out license plates and intersections as we speak, end quote. So that conversation is then what led to Benny Johnson having cash Patel on the show. And he asked Patel whether these group chats are legal. And Patel responded, quote, that's exactly what we're

investigating. As soon as Higby put that post out there, I opened an investigation on it, just like any other case. We immediately opened up that investigation because that sort of signal chat being coordinated with individuals, not just locally in Minnesota, but maybe even around the country, if that leads to a break in the federal statute or a violation of some law, then we are going to arrest people. You cannot create a scenario that illegally entraps and puts law enforcement in harm's way. Now, we will balance the first and second amendments constantly, but we do have to let the community know that we will not tolerate acts of violence and escalation and a violation of the federal code, end quote. So everyone really has the same question. Can the FBI investigate encrypted signal

chats in this manner? Or is this investigation a violation of the Constitution? And this is your answer. So if law enforcement agencies like the FBI have reason to believe that a law has been broken, they can investigate encrypted communications. So if the FBI has reason to believe, that people in these group chats were and are threatening or inciting violence, conspiring to obstruct federal officers, violating any other federal law for that matter. They have the authority to investigate those potential crimes by looking into these chats. If evidence is found that people violated the law, that is when the FBI could issue warrants and make arrests. So in a situation like this, people think about the First and Fourth Amendments, right? The First Amendment

protects speech and organization so long as it doesn't turn into criminal conduct and the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. So under the First Amendment, if you are just sharing information or you're organizing a protest, that is typically protected under the First Amendment. When that speech crosses over into criminal conduct, though, that is when things are treated differently. But here's an important distinction. Opening an investigation isn't the same thing. as searching private messages, right? So the FBI can open an investigation if they believe that criminal activity might be happening. But to actually access the contents of the chats, the government has to establish probable cause that a crime has been committed. And from there, obtain a warrant, right? You can't

get a warrant without establishing probable cause. So without probable cause and a warrant, the FBI can't constitutionally search private communications. So just to be very clear on this, what the government can't do is surveil or punish people simply for expressing political views or organizing protests. But once those messages cross the line into potential criminal conduct, like conspiring to obstruct federal officers or interfering with law enforcement operations, that's when the Constitution allows searches and surveillance so long as they are done with a warrant and proper legal authority. So that's the deal with that. Okay, let's talk about this potential government shutdown.

Let's do a quick little government lesson slash refresher first. Every fiscal year, Congress is supposed to pass 12 appropriations bills to fund the government. The fiscal year runs from October 1st through September 30th every year. So if Congress doesn't pass the next fiscal year's appropriations bills by the time that fiscal year starts on October 1st and there's no temporary funding in place, the government shuts down. They don't have the funds to operate. if Congress is able to pass some of the 12 appropriations bills, just not all of them, the government will only partially shut down. Only the departments that aren't funded will shut down.

And that's why we were talking about a potential shutdown back in September, October of last year. Congress hadn't passed any of the 12 appropriations bills by the start of the fiscal year, which then resulted in a full government shutdown. Eventually, as we know, Congress passed what's called a continuing resolution, which is what Congress will use when they can't. agree on full funding, but they want to keep the government open, right? A continuing resolution most of the time keeps the government funded at its current levels. So we don't typically see any major budget cuts or

increases with continuing resolutions. But the thing about continuing resolutions is that they are temporary. They do not last forever. So when Congress passed a continuing resolution in November of last year to reopen the government, it extended funding for most agencies through January 30th, 2026, which is tomorrow. That means that Congress has until tomorrow at midnight to agree on the rest of the funding bills or pass another continuing resolution to avoid a shutdown. Now, like I said, since the government reopened in November of last year, Congress has passed some appropriations bills for this fiscal year. So if a shutdown happens at midnight tomorrow, it would be a partial shutdown. Okay. So the departments that would be affected,

include the DHS, Defense Department, State Department, Treasury Department, Labor Department, HHS, Department of Transportation, Education Department, and Department of Housing and Urban Development. Those departments do not yet have funding, and therefore they will be affected if the government shuts down. On the other hand, the Department and agencies that will keep running because they already have their funding through this fiscal year, including. the Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Agriculture, the legislative branch, Department of Justice, Department of Energy, Department of Congress, and the Department of the Interior.

So if we do see a shutdown on Saturday, it'll be a partial shutdown. Now, here's where the politics come in. Because of the ICE enforcement operations around the country, and more so in Minneapolis, Democratic lawmakers are withholding funding from DHS. They say they will not support DHS funding until the Trump administration of agrees to certain reforms to rain in ice and put an end to these violent encounters between federal agents and protesters. So today, Senate Democrats and a few Republicans blocked a package of six funding bills because the package includes funding for DHS. Democratic Senator Patty Marie,

who played a big role in negotiating the package, said today she was voting no because the White House had not agreed to a deal to separate DHS funding from the bill. bill. She said Democrats would be quote unquote very happy to pass the five non-homeland security funding measures, but said that any package that includes the Homeland Security title is a non-starter with her and other Democrats. Her quote was, we are all in agreement on funding for child care, cancer research, air traffic controllers, our troops, and more. But we have also been clear that we cannot and will not move the DHS bill without real progress on accountability. End quote. But here is the really important.

important thing to understand. Even if DHS funding lapses tomorrow at midnight, ICE and Border Patrol can and will still operate. Okay. So the agents might not get paid, but they'll still work. So basically, when the government shuts down, certain government activities are considered essential, right? These essential activities have to continue operating. So this is things like air traffic controllers, as we know. The airports remain open. Air traffic controllers still have to go to work just by getting paid. immigration enforcement and border security are also considered essential. So if the government shuts down, or let's say Congress passes, you know, maybe they pass some of the funding measures, but they leave the DHS without funding, immigration enforcement operations most likely will not stop.

ICE and CBP can continue operating like normal. Again, they might not get immediate pay, but they still stay operating. The other thing to note is that ICE specifically, would continue to have funding despite a shutdown, even if the DHS doesn't get funding. You might remember that in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was signed into law last year, ICE received an additional $75 billion in funding for detention and enforcement. So ICE can certainly sustain regular operations for a while, even without DHS funding. So really, holding out on passing the funding measures for all of the remaining departments,

because DHS is included is only going to end up hurting other government agencies and employees. ICE is going to continue operating as normal. So that's the deal with the potential government shutdown. We will see tomorrow at midnight what happens. Again, if the government does shut down, which it is looking like that might be the case, it'll be a partial shutdown only affecting those departments that we spoke about. Okay, next story. On Tuesday, U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar was speaking during a town hall meeting in Minneapolis

about ice operations in the city and calling for the resignation of DHS Secretary Nome when a man approached her podium, spraying an unknown substance from a syringe. That man who has since been identified as 55-year-old Anthony James Kazmersak was quickly taken down by security and eventually arrested and charged with third-degree assault. Despite the incident, Omar continued with the town hall. on X later that day saying, quote, I'm okay, I'm a survivor, so this small agitator isn't going to intimidate me from doing my work. I don't let bullies win. Grateful to my incredible constituents who rallied behind me, Minnesota Strong, end quote. Since that incident, law enforcement officials did say the substance is believed to be apple cider vinegar. As for the suspect, he is currently

being held without bail. Now, the question that everyone wants to know is, what was this guy's motive? Why did he target her specifically? And as of now, no motive has officially been. confirmed. That said, some information has come out through media interviews with people who know the suspect. So in a phone interview, Kazmurzak's brother said he was not surprised by the incident. He said that his brother and their mother are, quote, right-wing extremists and that Kazmarzak has a, quote, hatred or has had a, quote, hatred of the Somali community for probably 20 years, end quote. It's also worth noting there that Omar is Somali. So that's the elements of that comment. One other thing worth noting there, the brother has been estranged from the

suspect for about four years. A neighbor also spoke to reporters saying that days before the town hall Casimir Zach asked if the neighbor could watch his dog. Casmerzac reportedly told the neighbor, quote, I'm going to this Omar thing, this town hall thing. I might get arrested. End quote. The neighbor said he thought it was quote unquote nonsense and didn't think Casmerzac was going to, quote, do anything stupid, but agreed to walk the dog. The next day, Kazmurzak told his neighbor not to worry about it and that he had it covered. So after the incident, the neighbor said during an interview, quote, I didn't take him seriously. I'm surprised, but not overly surprised.

I figured when he said he was going to go to the town hall, he'd stand up and say something stupid. I can't imagine him assaulting or spraying somebody. And quote. So those are some of the things that people who know the suspect have said. Now, we also know that Omar has been in the news lately for a few reasons. Number one, she's been very outspoken on immigration policy and social justice issues. And number two, she's been mentioned repeatedly by President Trump in some of his recent remarks related to Minnesota and the fraud investigations involving the Somali community.

Back in December in discussing those investigations, Trump referenced Omar directly and said, quote, when I see somebody like Ilhan Omar, who I don't know at all, but for years I've watched her complain about our Constitution, how she's being treated badly, how the United States of America is a bad place. She hates everybody, hates Jewish people, hates everybody, and I think she's an incompetent person. She's a real terrible person, end quote. Omar responded to that video clip, writing on X, quote, his obsession with me is creepy. I hope he gets the help he desperately needs. End quote. More recently on Saturday, following the shooting of Alex Pretty, Trump shared a picture of Pretty's gun to Truth Social and wrote about a few, he did mention it was Pretty's gun,

but then he wrote about a few things related to Minnesota. And one of those things that he said was, quote, where are the local police? Why weren't they allowed to protect ICE officers? The mayor and the governor called them off. It is stated that many of these police were not allowed to do their jobs, that ICE had to protect themselves. Not an easy thing to do. Why does Ilhan Omar have $34 million in her account? And where are the tens of billions of dollars that have been stolen from the once great state of Minnesota. We are there because of massive monetary fraud with billions of dollars missing and illegal criminals that were allowed to infiltrate the state through the Democrats' open border policy. We want the money back and we want it back now.

And then most recently, the day before the town hall incident, actually, President Trump said on truth social that quote, the DOJ and Congress are looking at Congresswoman Ilhan Omar who left Somalia with nothing and is now reportedly worth more than 44 minutes. million dollars. And quote, Omar responded to that saying, quote, sorry Trump, your support is collapsing and you are panicking. Right on cue, you're deflecting from your failures with lies and conspiracy theories about me. Years of quote unquote investigations have found nothing. Get your goons out of Minnesota. And quote. So there has clearly been this ongoing public conflict between President Trump and Representative Omar for a few months now, mostly tied to immigration, Minnesota politics and the allegations of fraud. What we don't know for sure. sure is whether that conflict had anything to do with Casmerzac's actions. Again, as of now, law enforcement has not confirmed a motive, but the investigation is ongoing. Let me actually use this. I was going to jump off to the next story, but I want to use this as an opportunity to talk to you guys about past episodes because I know a lot of you have questions about the fraud in

Minnesota. I also know I have a lot of new listeners here. So back in January, January 8th, to be exact, I did a 15 minute deep dive into what we know about the fraud in Minnesota. I also spoke about it back in December as well. So if I remember, I'll go ahead and link both of those episodes in the show notes. But always remember that if you're ever wanting to go back and listen to older episodes or you want to see if I've covered a certain topic in the past, you can always go to my website, which is unbiasednetwork.com. And you can search through all of my past episodes by keywords.

So if you go to the episode section of my website and you type in Minnesota, of fraud, you'll see the relevant episodes pop up right there. And again, like I said, I'll try to link them in the episode show notes, if I remember, just so they're easier to get to. But just in case I forget, you can always just search for past episodes on my website, unbiased network.com. Okay, let's take our second and final break here. When we come back, we have one more story, which is an update to a story from last week. And then we'll finish with quick hitters, rumor has it, and critical thinking. Welcome back. On Tuesday, a job. A Judge issued a temporary restraining order, prohibiting the administration from deporting

five-year-old Liam Ramos and his father. As we know, the detention of Liam Ramos captured national headlines and detention. So I figured I'd share this most recent update with you. That way, we're all kind of on the same page with this story. Just in case you don't remember, we'll do a quick refresher. About a week and a half ago, ICE agents detained a man named Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias, as well as his five-year-old son named Liam Ramos. It's still unclear why Conejo Arias was targeted by agents, but we know that when agents approached his car, he fled on foot. Meanwhile, Liam was in the backseat of the car. Eventually, once agents apprehended the father, the father told the agents that he wanted Liam to go with him, and they were both transported to a detention facility in Texas. That facility is designed to house immigrant families with underage children that have been accused of violating federal immigration law. But as with most things, there are conflicting accounts here, right? So the DHS said, in its own statement, quote, on January 20th, ICE conducted a targeted operation to arrest Adrian Alexander Canejo Arias. As agents approached the driver, Adrian Alexander Canejo Arias 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 Canejo Arias. Our officers made multiple attempts to get the mother inside of 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 was the entire operation, or sorry, 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 Dilly. Parents are asked if they want to be removed with their children or ICE will place the children with a safe person that the parent designates. This is consistent with past administration's immigration enforcement. And quote. Meanwhile, the superintendent of the school district in the neighborhood where the boy lives said that there was another adult living in the home that was outside, so not the mother, but someone else that was outside of the home begging the agents to let them take care of the small

child, but that person was refused. The superintendent also accused ICE agents of leading Liam to the front door of the home. and telling him to knock on the door in order to see if anyone else was home, which the superintendent said was essentially using Liam as bait. And that's a narrative which DHS has denied. We've also heard from a pastor who said he has spoken to Liam's mother who was inside of the house at the time of the incident. And the pastor claimed ICE agents were trying to use the baby for her to come out of the house. But the neighbors stepped up and advised her not to do it. Now, according to the family's attorney and public reports, the family entered the United

States through an official port of entry using the CBP1 app to seek asylum. The father reportedly entered in 2024 and filed an asylum claim in December 2024, which remains pending. At the time of his arrest, both he and Liam had pending immigration cases. Because of those pending cases, the federal government cannot deport them. And that's because of something called due process, right? So due process applies to everyone, not just citizens. And basically under due process, the constitution requires the government to follow certain

procedures before taking away someone's liberty. But here's the other thing. Not everyone is legally entitled to the same level of due process when it comes to immigration. So in immigration law, how much process you get depends on who you are, where you were stopped, and what legal status you have at the moment. So let's say you enter the country illegally, you were caught shortly thereafter, and you never filed for asylum or any other form of relief. You can be deported right away. There's no case to wait on. You're not entitled to a hearing. You can just be deported. Now, there's also something called expedited removal. So under federal law, the government can use expedited removal when someone entered illegally. They can't show they've been here long enough, and they don't express a fear of return to their own country or request. asylum. So when people are deported without a court hearing, it's usually because the law does allow a fast track process. Again, immigration due process exists, but in a lot of cases, it's pretty

limited. So to get back to the story at hand, both Liam and his father lawfully requested asylum and have pending cases, that means they cannot legally be deported until their cases have been fully adjudicated. So once they were detained, their lawyer filed for a restraining order to prevent their removal. And on Tuesday, that request was granted. And just kind of, just so we're all on the same page, a temporary restraining order, I think people tend to think of in the domestic violence context. But a temporary restraining order is basically the judge saying, we're going to put everything on hold until I can look at this more closely. So it's a temporary measure. It only lasts about two weeks. Once that time is up, the judge can either let it expire or replace it with what's called a

preliminary injunction, which can stay in effect until the court, you know, reaches a more final decision on the actual merits of the case. So in this case, the TRO freezes the family situation temporarily to make sure they're not removed from the country or move to another location while the case continues. From here, the judge will have to hold more proceedings to decide the merits of the case, including, you know, whether their asylum claim should be granted, whether detention and deportation are lawful or unlawful, things of that nature. One other related storyline here that I just want to quickly address is Liam Ramos's health. So I saw some viral posts on social media.

You may have seen them as well about Liam's deteriorating health conditions. So I just want to touch on this real quick just so we all have the facts. A Democratic representative named Joaquin Castro wrote in a post on X on Wednesday, quote, just visited with Liam and his father at Dilley Detention Center. I demanded his release and told him how much his family, his soul. school and his country loves him and his praying for him. End quote. Castro included a picture with his post, which shows him looking over Liam and Liam's

father. Liam's father is sitting on a bench. Liam is sleeping in his father's lap. Then Castro posted a corresponding video to Instagram where he said that Liam's father told him that since they arrived at the detention center, Liam has been sleeping a lot, hasn't eaten well, has been depressed, and hasn't been himself. Now, Castro was clear in his video about the fact that Liam isn't in, quote, any kind of emergency physically, end quote. But again, just so we're all on the same page, this is where that headline about Liam Ramos's health is coming from.

It's coming from Representative Castro's account of visiting them in this facility and what Liam's father told him while he was there. Okay, let's do a few quick hitters. yesterday the FBI executed a search warrant at the elections office in Fulton County, Georgia, which as many of you remember, Fulton County has been at the center of President Trump's claim that the 2020 election was stolen, right? All we know at this point is that a search warrant shows agents were looking for all physical ballots from the 2020 election, including absentee ballots in the envelopes they arrived in, tabulator tapes for every voting machine, all ballot images produced when ballots were counted, and voter rolls from the 2020 election. Now, the DOJ did sue Fulton County officials back in December to force them to hand over records related to the 2020 election, but a judge has not yet issued a ruling in that case. so instead it appears the DOJ was able to obtain this search warrant to secure what they were looking for. Trucks at the elections facility could be seen loading boxes, and an FBI spokesperson at the scene said the materials would be taken to the FBI Central Records Complex in Virginia.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday, answering questions from lawmakers about the U.S. operation in Venezuela. Rubio told the committee that at this time, the U.S. does not intend to take any additional military. action in Venezuela, but that the Maduro regime represented a, quote, untenable situation, end quote, that needed to be dealt with. He also said that transitioning to a democracy in Venezuela would take some time, that it's not going to be a linear transition process. There will be some ups and downs, but that so far it's trending in the right direction. And President Trump officially announced the rollout of Trump accounts, the savings plan for children born during his current term. Multiple

banks and organizations like SoFi, BNY Mellon, Bank of America, BlackRock, and JPMorgan have all already pledged to make a matching $1,000 contribution to their employees who open a Trump account for their children. Rapper Nikki Minaj, attending the Trump accounts event yesterday, said she will contribute between $150,000 and $300,000 to fund her fans' Trump accounts. So these accounts are expected to be available starting July 4th of this year, and they are available to any child under the age of 18, who is a U.S. citizen with a social security number. Okay, now it's time for rumor has it, which is my weekly segment where I address rumors submitted by all of you and either confirm them, dispel them, or add context. I received a ton of submissions,

but because this episode is already getting close to 50 minutes long, we are going to keep it to two. Rumor has it that ICE will be at the Olympics. This is true. DHS spokesperson, Trisha McLaughlin, said, quote, at the Olympics, ICE's Homeland Security Investigations is supporting the U.S. Department of State's diplomatic security service and host nation to vet and mitigate risks from transnational criminal organizations. All security operations remain under Italian authority. And quote, a spokesperson for ICE's Homeland Investigations Unit said ICE, quote unquote, obviously wouldn't be carrying out immigration enforcement operations in a foreign country, but that they would survey, quote, unquote, security.

role. What I want to be clear about here is that the specific unit of ICE that is going to the Olympics is the Homeland Security Investigations Unit, or HSI. This is different than the enforcement and removal operations or ERO. HSI specifically focuses on transnational crime investigations like trafficking, fraud, organized crime, things of that nature. HSI does have an international presence in a lot of countries already. So the unit going to the Olympics is a different unit of ICE than the unit that handles immigration enforcement here in the United States. A lot of people tend to just kind of, you know, think ICE is one thing, but ICE is an agency that has different units within it. And I should also also mention that HSI officials have assisted at

past Olympic Games, as well as some major international events. But the reason that this is attracting so much attention right now is because of the ongoing controversies surrounding ice removal efforts here in the United States. Okay, second and final one. Rumor has it that Borders R. Tom Homan received an award from President Obama for his immigration enforcement efforts. This is also true. During Obama's presidency, Homan served first as an assistant director for ICE's enforcement

and removal operations, or ERO, then as the deputy executive associate director of ERO, and then finally as the executive associate director of ERO. And in 2015, he received the Presidential RANK Award for Distinguished Service. According to a 2015 DHS press release, the award, quote, recognizes and celebrates some of the federal government's top career executives and senior professionals for consistently demonstrating strength, integrity, and commitment to public service. The Presidential Rank Award is bestowed each year by the president upon a small group of career employees and is the nation's high. highest civil service award. This prestigious honor is divided into two categories, distinguished rank for leaders who achieve sustained extraordinary results, and meritorious rank for leaders with sustained accomplishments. And as I mentioned, Homan did receive the distinguished rank. Okay, let's finish

with critical thinking. We'll stick with Tom Homan. So obviously, as we've talked about, he once oversaw the enforcement and removal operations under Obama. And now he's similarly overseeing enforcement operations in Minneapolis. He also serves his borders are under Trump. Given that, here are my questions. First question. Can we judge government officials separately from the president that they work under? Or do you feel that that separation is unrealistic and why?

And the second and final question is this. Do you think that media coverage plays a bigger role in shaping perception than the actual facts of someone's job history. And if so, how should audiences account for that when they're forming their own opinions? That's what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here, per usual. Have a fantastic weekend. And I will talk to you again on Monday.