UNBIASED - July 16, 2026: ICE Shooting Update, Iran Strikes, Trump’s Utah Monument Reductions, and More.

Episode Date: July 16, 2026

Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: What We Know About the ICE Shooting in Maine (1:00) Darline Graham Appointed to Fill Sen. Graham's Seat (10:53) Revised Russia Sanctions Bill Released; One of Graham's Last Acts. Here's What It Says (16:31) Judge Says Trump's Settlement with IRS Can't Be Used in Official Proceedings (~24:13) Iran Updates: Naval Blocked Reimposed and More Strikes (~28:11) Trump Reduces Size of Two Utah National Monuments By About 90% (~33:46) Quick Hitters (~50:23) Critical Thinking Segment (~57:58) ⁠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

If you win a $3,000 a month payday for life, what would you feel free to do? Maybe take a long weekend, every weekend, or try a bunch of new hobbies? Would you feel free to upgrade and listen ad-free? Don't worry, we get it. Every $20 ticket could win you $3,000 a month for life and supports life-saving cancer research at the Princess Margaret. Feel free to buy your payday for life ticket today. Raffle number 155-21.4. Please play responsibly.

Welcome back to Unbiased. your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to unbiased politics. It is Thursday, July 16th, and we have a lot to talk about. We are starting today's episode talking about the fatalized shooting in Maine. We'll also talk briefly about Darlene Graham's Senate appointment and answer some of your questions. We'll talk about Graham's Russia sanctions bill now that we have the text of that. We'll do an update on Iran. What's going on there? We'll also talk about the president's Proclamation, reducing National Monumentland in Utah. And we have even more to talk about than that,

if you can believe it. So let's get into today's episode. But before we do, I would love it if you could go ahead and follow the podcast wherever you're listening. It's really easy. Depending on what platform you're listening on, there's a little button that either says follow or subscribe. And clicking that will not only let your phone notify you when my episodes go live, but it also helps keep the show free for everybody. And for that, I know we all appreciate you. So thank you very much. All right. First story, the fatal ice shooting in Biddeford, Maine. Now, when I first reported on this story on Monday, there was not much information available because it had just happened that morning. We've since learned a lot more. We now know that the man who was killed was 26-year-old

Juan Sebastian Guerrero, a Columbia National who lived in Maine with his wife and their three-year-old daughter. Their apartment complex or apartment building was actually located at the intersection where the shooting happened. So according to DHS, ICE agents had been conducting targeted surveillance at this particular address. It was the address of, or it was the last known address of a person who was in the country illegally and had received a final order of removal, meaning an immigration judge or another authorized immigration official had completed the legal process and ordered that person be removed from the United States. So DHS says that ICE was, you know, conducting surveillance at this

particular address and saw a car leave that address. And agents tried to stop the car. The man driving the car was Guerrero and he attempted to, he, he wasn't stopping. We don't know the details of what happened at this specific instance, because as we'll get into in a minute, there's not actual video footage of the, you know, the actual shooting. So we don't exactly know what took place in that very moment. But DHS has said that an officer fearing for public safety shot through the windshield of the car when Guerrero tried to drive away. Again, there's no publicly available video showing the exact moment when the officer fired. The agent also was out wearing a body camera. So the footage that has been released doesn't show us exactly where the agent was standing or how the vehicle was moving at that very moment or what the agent could see from his point of view when the shooting happened.

So none of that is known at this moment. There was one surveillance recording that captured audio from the shooting. And you can hear someone saying, move it, let's go. And then back back right before what sounds like five gunshots. are heard. Separate surveillance video from a nearby pawn shop shows what happened immediately after the shooting. So a white Kia can be seen slowly entering an intersection with two ice officers surrounding the car on foot. The car then begins making these slow, circular loops through the intersection. And as the Kia is doing this, the two agents are trying to open the

driver's side door, but they are unable to do so. After the car makes three slow loops, one agent then runs up the road and out of the camera's view. From a different angle, you can see another ice agent arriving in an SUV and using that SUV to block the Kia to essentially get the Kia to stop its motion. Three agents then surround the stopped car. One agent can be seen pointing a weapon toward the driver's side window, but no additional shots are fired at this point. The agents then open the car door and pull Guerrero out. He falls to the ground. And in another video, you can see agents placing him in handcuffs while he's lying there on the ground. He does not appear to be moving at this point, but it's unclear whether he was still alive. Pictures of the Kia appear to

show four bullet holes on the driver's side of the windshield. Now, DHS initially said the person who was killed had been the target of the immigration operation. Officials later corrected that information and confirmed that Guerrero was not the person agents had been seeking. According to Maine-S Senator Angus King, DHS Secretary Mark Wayne Mullen initially told him that Guerrero was the subject of the warrant and that the officer believed he had tried to use the vehicle as a weapon, and that is why he fired. But about three hours later, Mullen called King back and clarified that Guerrero had not been the intended target. As for the reported claim that the officer believed Guerrero had tried to use the car as a weapon, again, that is what he reportedly told

the main senator. However, once DHS released a statement, it was less special. specific about it. DHS simply said the officer fired shots fearing for public safety. So just to be clear here, the person that ICE agents had originally been monitoring was reportedly in the country illegally and had a final removal order. Guerrero was a different person. As for Guerrero's immigration status, DHS says that he entered the United States illegally on September 1st, 2023 by crossing the southern border. he was subsequently released into the United States. According to the main immigrants rights coalition, Guerrero was legally authorized to work in the

United States and had been issued a Social Security number. So it appears that Guerrero was living in the United States without permanent legal status, but had some sort of temporary authorization to work as his immigration case or another legal process was pending. The ICE officer who fired the shots has not been publicly identified, but we know that the officer has worked in federal law enforcement since 2017 and joined ICE earlier this year after previously working for the Department of Veterans Affairs Police. We also know that officer has since been placed on administrative leave, which is standard procedure when things like this happen. So following the shooting on Monday night, ICE assistant director of field operations, Leona Castano, reportedly emailed, called senior ICE supervisors across the country and said that vehicle stops were being suspended

until further notice. And a vehicle stop in this context means ICE agents attempting to pull over or stop a person while that person is driving. The email also reportedly included an exception for cases in which ICE was pursuing a criminal suspect in cooperation with another law enforcement agency. So the direction appears to have temporarily suspended most ICE-initiated vehicle stops, but not every vehicle stop and not ICE enforcement as a whole. Then on Wednesday morning, President Trump posted on Truth Social that traffic stops are one of ICE's most important and effective enforcement tools and told agents to be judicious, fair, and smart, but to continue doing their jobs. DHS Secretary Mullen later released a statement saying that people in the country illegally would be arrested and deported wherever they are. But he didn't directly say whether ICE agents had been formally authorized to resume vehicle stops. So we're not really sure where it stands as of right now.

The public statements from Trump and Mullen appear to at least support the continued use of traffic stops. But the administration has not publicly confirmed whether that order suspending vehicle stops has officially been. been withdrawn. So like I said, we've learned a lot since Monday. There are still, though, a lot of questions that are unanswered about the shooting. And I think this is one of the things that, you know, this always happens whenever stuff like this happens, but you get on social media and people are so definitive about what happened, right? We have people in this instance specifically saying, you know, Guerrero was in the wrong because he uses vehicle as a weapon and he tried to run the officer over. But then you have other people saying that Guerrero was totally innocent. And, you know,

he didn't do anything wrong. And the fact of the matter is we do not have video surveillance footage. People are only going on what the DHS is saying or not saying or what's been corrected. So just to be clear, there are a certain set of facts that we know. I will review those facts just so we're all on the same page once we get to the end of this story. But yeah, just be cautious about what you see on social media because I think a lot of people are jumping to definitive conclusions when the fact of the matter is we don't have all of the evidence at this point. point. One thing that I do want to touch on, because this question comes up a lot, it has come up every time there has been an ICE shooting. So DHS says that this officer fired because he feared for public safety. And the question is always, when are officers allowed to use deadly force? And under DHS and ICE policy, an officer can use deadly force only when the officer has a

reasonable belief that the person poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to either the officer or someone else. And that policy also generally prohibits firing at a moving vehicle unless that deadly force standard is met. Firing merely to stop or disable a vehicle is not enough. So that is when deadly force is permissible under DHS and ICE policy. More is good. going to develop here in the coming days and weeks, especially as we learn more about the events that led up to the shooting, what actually took place at the time of the shooting, maybe there's better video footage that comes out at some point. So again, the main facts confirmed at this point are that ICE attempted to stop Guerrero's car, an ICE officer fired multiple shots through the

windshield of the car, and Guerrero was not ICE's intended target. Next story. Right as Monday's episode was going live, South Carolina's governor announced the appointment of Darlene Graham to fill Lindsey Graham's Senate seat. And I mentioned in Monday's episode that this was a possibility because President Trump had recommended her to fill the seat. But it didn't end up becoming official until about 4 p.m. that afternoon. The next day, she was officially sworn in. And she actually, with her swearing in, she became the first woman to represent South Carolina in the U.S. Senate. So it's just a little fun fact for you. Now, I know some of you had questions about whether something like this has ever happened before and whether someone needs experience in politics to fill a

congressional seat. So we'll talk about that. But first, I want to talk a little bit about her relationship with her brother. They grew up in South Carolina. Their parents had a business called the Sanitary Cafe. It was actually part restaurant, part bar, part liquor store, and part pool hall. And the Graham family lived in the rooms behind. their business. Well, their mom died in 1976 after a battle with Hodgkin lymphoma. 15 months later, their dad died from a heart attack in his sleep. Darlene was 13 years old at the time, and Lindsay was 22. Lindsay had just started law school at the University of South Carolina. So after their dad died, Darlene actually went to live with an aunt and uncle in Seneca,

and Lindsay ended up becoming her legal guardian. He eventually formally adopted her once he joined the Air Force so she could get his military benefits. But at age 22, he became her legal guardian. Darlene once described Lindsay as a brother, a father, and a mother combined. As for Darlene's own background, she graduated from the College of Charleston in 1989 with a degree in sociology. She later got her master's degree in rehabilitation counseling from South Carolina State University and became a certified public manager. She also attended the University of South Carolina as a graduate student for two semesters in 2007 and 2008. She did not end up getting a degree as part of that program, though. She has never held an elected office, but she has spent

nearly 30 years working in public administration and disability services. She previously held positions with Clemson University, the South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce, and the South Carolina Department of Vocational Rehabilitation. Since 2019, she's served as commissioner and agency head of the South Carolina Commission for the Blind, which provides employment, independent living, and blindness prevention services to those who live in South Carolina, who are either blind or have low vision. She also served on the South Carolina State Workforce Development Board and was president-elect of the National Council of State agencies for the Blind.

So while she hasn't been a legislator or an elected official, she has led a state agency and worked in state government for years. An important distinction here, though, and we talked about this briefly in Monday's episode, but I want to be clear about the fact that Darlene's appointment only fills the remaining months of her brother's current Senate term. It does not automatically make her the Republican nominee in November. It doesn't give her the next six-year term. She's only there until January 3rd. And speaking of nominees in November, I received an interesting message after Monday's episode. So on Monday, I mentioned that whoever wins this Republican special primary election in South Carolina will face Democratic candidate Annie Anders in November.

And that is true. But I received this message from a woman named Cassie Whittner, Whitener, letting me know that she is also on the ballot in South Carolina as the libertarian candidate. And she just asked that I issue a correction, which I am happy to do. So whoever wins the Republican special primary election in South Carolina will face Democrat Annie Andrews, libertarian Cassie Wittener, six independent candidates, and then one candidate from the Constitution Party. Okay.

So getting back to Darlene's appointment, some of you were wondering whether a governor has ever appointed a family member who hadn't previously held elected. office to temporarily fill a Senate seat. And the answer is yes. Historically speaking, most examples have involved like a widow of a senator or representative, not necessarily a sister, but 45 women had directly succeeded their late husbands in Congress as of 2025. Some of those women were appointed to temporary Senate positions, as Darleen was. Others actually won special elections for House seats. South Carolina itself has had four women succeed their husbands in the U.S. House, and none of them held elected office before entering Congress. Those situations were a little different because they were

house vacancies, so the women actually had to run in special elections rather than simply being appointed by the governor. But a closer Senate comparison happened in North Dakota in 1992. after Senator Quentin Burdick died, North Dakota's governor appointed his wife to temporarily hold his seat. And she served for about three months from September until December. So appointing a family member to temporarily fill a congressional seat does have historical precedent. But it's usually a wife, not a sister. However, in Lindsey Graham's case, he never married. He didn't have any kids.

His sister was his closest relative. Speaking of Senator Graham, let's talk about. this tariff bill that he announced just before his death. On Monday, I mentioned that when he died, he had just gotten back from Ukraine, where he announced an agreement with the White House on a revised sanctions bill targeting Russian energy. And at the time, the revised version of the bill hadn't been made public. So I just talked about some of the more notable parts of the version of the bill that was public. But the revised version has since been released. So this is what we know about it. The bill is called the sanctioning Russia Act of 2026. It was formally introduced Tuesday by a bipartisan

group of senators. Graham developed this legislation with two Democratic senators and one other Republican senator. And the goal of the bill is basically to reduce the amount of money Russia gets from selling oil and natural gas, reduce the amount of oil and natural gas that Russia actually sells. So the bill doesn't just target Russian companies. It also targets foreign companies. countries, foreign companies, and foreign financial institutions that buy or help sell Russian energy. And these are known as secondary sanctions. So basically, instead of directly prohibiting an American company from doing business with Russia, secondary sanctions put economic consequences on foreign parties that continue certain transactions with Russia. Under the revised bill,

one potential consequence of doing business with Russia would be tariffs of up to 100% on imports from the countries buying the largest amounts of Russian oil and natural gas. And that's a big change from the previous version of the bill. The previous version of the bill that I reported on in Monday's episode proposed a 500% tariff on goods from those countries that continued purchasing Russian energy. So the revised bill lowers that maximum tariff to 100% and limits it, to the five largest buyers of Russian crude oil and the five largest buyers of Russian natural gas. The five largest current purchasers of Russian crude oil are China, India, Slovakia, Hungary, and Azerbaijan. The five largest purchasers of Russian natural gas are China, France, Japan, Hungary, and Belgium.

according to the bill, the lists of top five buyers in both categories would be updated every 180 days. So countries could be added or taken off the list if their purchasing levels changed. And as a note, even though countries like China and Hungary are on both of those lists, the bill specifically says that tariffs cannot be combined into a 200% tariff. The maximum would be 100%. And just to kind of explain what that means, a 100% tariff would essentially add an import tax equal to the value of the product, and it would be on the American importer to pay. So if an American company imported a product with a customs value of $100 from, let's say, Japan or France, the federal government could charge that American importer another $100 in tariffs.

And yes, this hurts the American importer, but it also potentially hurts the foreign exporter because an American importer might instead source their imports from somewhere else to avoid paying that tariff. So that's the whole point. The purpose is to pressure these big buyers of Russian energy to stop buying from Russia or at least reduce their purchases. Another important change involves when these sanctions would take effect. So the earlier version of the bill said that sanctions could be triggered if Russia either refused to negotiate peace in good faith, violated a peace agreement, or launched another invasion of Ukraine. But the revised version instead just says that many of these sanctions would be imposed once the bill becomes law. So in this revised version, there's no waiting

for the administration to determine that Russia failed a specific test involving negotiations. They would just automatically be imposed once this became law. And then the bill also gives the president the authority to waive sanctions if he determines that doing so is in the national interest of the United States. And in that case, the president would have to notify Congress and explain the waiver. So again, the bill isn't law yet, but because we touched on it in Monday's episode and because it does have bipartisan support, as well as the backing of the White House, I figured I would give you an update because it's very possible that this bill does become law. All right, let's take our first break here. When we come back, we'll talk about the latest in Trump's

case against the IRS. We'll do an Iran update, and then we'll discuss much, much more. Welcome back. Now for an update on President Trump's settlement with the IRS. which we've discussed at length in previous episodes. But on Monday, a federal judge ruled that Trump and his attorneys filed the lawsuit against the IRS for what she called an improper purpose. Judge Williams basically found that there was never a genuine legal dispute for the court to resolve because Trump was suing the IRS and Treasury Department in his personal capacity while also serving as president and overseeing those agencies.

She also noted in her ruling on Monday that during the 109 days that this lawsuit was pending, no government attorney ever formally appeared in the case or filed anything that would explain or defend the government's position. And she said that the government handled Trump's case differently than it had handled other similar lawsuits over leaked tax information. And based on that, Judge Williams determined that the lawsuit had been used to give the, quote, of judicial legitimacy, end quote, to a settlement that the parties didn't actually submit to the court for approval. In other words, the judge found that the lawsuit was used to make a privately negotiated agreement look as though it had the court's approval, even though the court never reviewed it and never approved it. So what did she do about this? Well, first, she barred Trump, his sons, the Trump organization, the IRS, and the treasuring department from reforming.

to the agreement as a settlement or using any part of it in court, using any part of it as part of a regulatory proceeding, arbitration, or any other official proceeding. Now, she didn't technically rule on whether the agreement could still exist as a private contract, but because the parties can't rely on it in an official proceeding, they can't use it as evidence that the government legally agreed to the protections included in the deal. So as an example, let's say the IRS opens an audit involving Trump or one of his businesses. Trump's attorneys couldn't go into court or into an IRS proceeding point to this agreement or this settlement and say, hey, the government promised not to audit us, so this has to stop. They wouldn't be able to do that under the judge's ruling.

Similarly, they wouldn't be able to use the agreement to enforce a payment through the anti-weaponization fund. And that's why the court's ruling has been described as effectively voiding the settlement. Now, the judge also imposed sanctions, which are essentially penalties that a judge can order when she finds that a party or an attorney has misused the judicial process in some way. So one attorney was temporarily barred from receiving special permission to practice in the federal court where this lawsuit was filed. A few other attorneys were referred to their state bar associations for possible disciplinary review. She also said monetary sanctions. She also said monetary sanctions. might be appropriate against Trump, as well as the other plaintiffs and their attorneys,

but she hasn't yet set an amount. So to recap here, the underlying lawsuit, Trump's original lawsuit against the IRS, it remains dismissed with prejudice. And for those who aren't so caught up, Trump and the plaintiffs did go ahead and voluntarily dismiss that lawsuit when they announced the quote unquote settlement with the IRS and Treasury Department. So the underlying lawsuit remains dismissed with prejudice, which means Trump and the other plaintiffs can't bring the same claims again. Now, they could appeal Judge Williams' latest order, the Monday order, that had to do with the sanctions and the restriction on using the settlement and official proceedings, but filing an appeal on that matter wouldn't automatically revive the original lawsuit,

because again, it's been dismissed with prejudice. So that is the latest there. Let's now do an Iran update because quite a bit has happened since we last talked about this. When we left off last week, the United States and Iran had resumed exchanging strikes. President Trump said he thought the ceasefire was over and both sides were accusing the other of violating that agreement that they signed last month. Well, over the weekend, Iran again suspended most of the traffic through the Strait of Hormuz due to what Iranian officials described as the unauthorized passage through the waterway. Officials said ships would be allowed through the straight once stability was restored. Again, Iran wants control of the ships passing through the straight. However,

the Trump administration said, no, no, no, the straight has to remain open. Iran can't control which ships can pass. So on Monday, Trump announced that the United States was reinstating its naval blockade of Iran. And just to clarify what that means, Trump basically said, okay, the street is going to remain open to general commercial traffic, but U.S. forces are going to specifically block ships that are either traveling to or from Iranian ports, as well as ships carrying Iranian cargo. At the same time, so when Trump announced that the naval blockade was going to be reinstated, he also announced that all cargo passing through the strait would be charged what he called a 20% reimbursement fee. His argument was that if the U.S. military was providing security and keeping

this waterway open, the countries and companies benefiting from that protection should help cover the cost. But it was never really that clear how the fee would have been calculated or collected. In fact, the UN's international shipping agencies said that it generally opposes fees for passage through international waterways. So it was a little bit unclear when it was first announced. There weren't really many details given. But it didn't necessarily matter because one day after announcing that fee, Trump reversed course. He said on Tuesday, that he decided not to move forward with the 20% charge. He had spoke with leaders from several countries in the region and decided against it.

He said that Gulf countries had instead offered to enter into trade and investment agreements with the United States. He also said that he ultimately agreed that no one should be charged a fee to pass through the straight, but he still felt that the United States and still feels that the United States should receive some sort of economic benefit for providing the security there. Now, as far as those trade and investment agreements with Gulf countries, we don't know much about that. There weren't any details provided when the announcement was made. So we don't know which countries agreed to participate or how much they committed or whether any formal agreements have been drafted or signed.

So as of now, the proposed 20% fee is off the table. The blockade of Iranian ships and cargo remains in effect. and U.S. strikes on Iran have continued and expanded. On Tuesday night into Wednesday, U.S. Central Command said the military struck dozens of targets over approximately seven hours, including Iranian missile and drone facilities, as well as coastal defense systems. The U.S. says those systems were connected to Iran's ability to threaten commercial shipping and the military force is operating near the strait. The U.S. then carried out additional strikes during daylight hours on Wednesday. Those included targets on Greater Tanub Island, which sits right near the entrance to the strait, and it contains Iranian military and missile facilities. And then Iranian State TV also reported that a separate strike hit in army barracks in southeastern Iran, killing seven soldiers and wounding others. Then earlier today, more strikes were reported. reported, including at sites connected to Iran's ballistic missile and space programs. And this was actually the first time. Today was the first time during this latest round of fighting

that reported U.S. strikes had reached areas around Iran's capital. Iranian officials say the latest U.S. strikes have killed more than 35 people and injured more than 300. However, it is worth just highlighting that those figures are coming from Iranian authorities and have not been independently verified. Iran, meanwhile, has continued, responding with its own attacks targeting countries that host U.S. military forces. This morning, Bahrain, Jordan, and Kuwait reported incoming Iranian missiles or drones, and officials in those countries said their defenses intercepted at least some of the attacks, and there were no reports of casualties.

Also worth mentioning that shipping traffic is still down despite the strait being open. According to shipping data, only nine vessels traveled through the strait on Wednesday, which was down from 13 on Tuesday. No extra large crude oil tankers or liquefied natural gas tankers were seen passing through that day either. So although ships other than those connected to Iran are technically allowed to travel through, it seems that a lot of companies are still just kind of hesitant to do so. They don't want to risk sending ships into an active conflict zone because you never know what can happen. So that's where we're at. Neither side, neither the U.S. nor Iran has officially said negotiations are permanently over, but last month's agreement is no longer preventing

attacks. So for now, the U.S. and Iran are continuing to exchange strikes while also leaving open the possibility that negotiations could eventually resume. We just don't know when that might be. Okay. President Trump signed two proclamations, reducing the boundaries of Bears' ears national monument and Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument, both in southern Utah. Now, I know there's a debate over how Grand Staircase Escalante is pronounced. Some people say Grand Staircase Escalante, I believe, but I'm going to go with Grand Staircase Escalante, which is also a permissible pronunciation. So together, these two monuments previously covered approximately 3.23 million acres, but under the new boundaries,

they'll cover a combined total of just over 302,000 acres. So if we do the math, that means about 2.93 million acres are being removed from the monuments. However, that land will generally remain federally owned public land. And we'll talk about what that means in a few minutes because I understand how it can get confusing. Before we get into the details of this story, I do just want to clarify what a national monument is and what Trump's proclamations actually change. So a national monument is not necessarily the same thing as a national park. National parks can be created by Congress. But under a law called the Antiquities Act of 1906, a president can designate historic landmarks,

historic or prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interests that are located on federally controlled land as national monuments. And the Antiquities Act also allows the president to reserve the. surrounding federal land needed to care for those monuments. However, the law says the surrounding area has to be limited to the smallest area compatible with properly caring for and managing them. So the monument designation essentially puts an added legal and management layer over that land and removes or withdraws it from some of the public land mining and leasing laws that would otherwise apply. So Trump's proclamations aren't transferring the land out of federal control. Okay, most of the land will remain federally owned. It'll generally continue to be managed by the Bureau of Land Management

or the U.S. Forest Service and it'll remain subject to other federal laws protecting things such as archaeological sites, historic properties, endangered species, and certain wilderness areas. But what is changing is the legal status of the land. So the approximately 2.93 million acres being removed from the two monuments will no longer be covered by the monument reservations established under the Antiquities Act. So those acres will lose the specific restrictions and management requirements that came with being inside the monuments. And beginning at 9 a.m. Eastern on September 11th, which is 60 days from when the proclamations were signed, the newly excluded lands will reopen under three categories of federal law, general public land laws, mineral and geothermal leasing

laws, and mining laws. So starting September 11th, people and companies can apply for or pursue certain claims, leases, permits, land transactions, or other legal rights that the monument designation had prevented or restricted. That could mean, for example, staking a mining claim for minerals. Maybe it means applying for a federal lease to develop oil, natural gas, coal, geothermal energy. Maybe it means getting permission for a road or a pipeline or a transmission line. In more limited circumstances, it could mean pursuing a land exchange or a sale under federal public land law. But just to be clear, opening the land to those laws only allows those proposals to be submitted or considered. It doesn't guarantee that a lease will be issued or any project will be approved. Whether

any particular proposal is approved would depend on the location, the type of activity and the other laws that apply to that specific situation. A project could still require a federal permit, an environmental review, public input, maybe compliance with federal and state environmental and historic preservation laws. And then you have some parcels that might still be unavailable for certain uses because they're separately protected or, you know, they've been withdrawn under another law. Now, we know that the Trump administration has made expanding domestic mineral and energy production a stated policy goal. And the proclamations themselves cite access to domestic resources as one reason for changing the boundaries. So these changes could lead to approved mining or energy

development projects in these areas. Okay. So that's what the, um, proclamations changed. Now I want to go through a little bit of history behind these two monuments. President Clinton created Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument in 1996. He initially reserved approximately 1.7 million acres. President Obama created Bears' ears in December 2016, and he initially reserved about 1.35 million acres. During Trump's first term, he reduced both monuments. His 2017 proclamation removed about 860,000 acres from Grand Staircase Escalante. And then a separate proclamation removed about 1.15 million acres from Bear's ears.

So it did also add about 11,000 acres that hadn't been included in Obama's original monument. Then in 2021, President Biden changed the boundaries again. He brought Grand Staircase Escalante to approximately 1.87 million acres and Bear's ears to approximately 1.3 million acres. 36 million acres. So Biden's boundaries were actually a little bit larger than both of the original reservations. And now Trump's new proclamations reduce them again. So Grand Sturcase Escalante will be reduced from approximately 1.87 million acres to 181,541 acres and bears ears from about 1.36 million acres to 121,096 acres. The proclamations also include directions for managing the areas that will remain inside the monuments. Federal agencies are instructed to consider public

access, hunting, recreation, livestock grazing, road and trail access, vegetation management, timber management, and infrastructure, as long as those activities remain consistent with applicable law and the care of the protected objects. The proclamations also call for new transportation plans addressing which roads and trails can be used by motorized and non-motorized vehicles. And then there's also a pretty significant change involving tribal participation in the management of Bears' ears specifically. So Obama's 2016 proclamation created the Bears' ears commission. And this commission was made up of representatives from the five tribes that advocated for the monument. The commission basically provided guidance and recommendations to federal agencies about the

monuments management. In 2022, the commission, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Forest Service entered into an agreement that established a process for cooperative management. So federal agencies still have final legal authority over the land, but there was this like cooperative effort between those agencies and the commission. However, Trump's new proclamation terminates the Bears' ears commission and says federal agencies will no longer be required to consult or coordinate with that commission or a comparable organization under the earlier proclamations. However, federal agencies do still have to consult individual tribal governments when consultation is required under other federal laws.

The proclamation instead calls for an advisory committee with one representative from each of the five tribes, representatives from San Juan County, and four local governments, as well as six members recommended by Utah's governor. Those six members will represent archaeology or history, livestock grazing, outdoor recreation, conservation, private landowners, and local businesses. Okay, we're going to take our second and final break here. When we come back, we will finish this story by talking about why the monuments were reduced, what the opposition says, and what the law says about the president's authority to do something like this. And then we'll wrap up this episode with quick hitters and critical thinking.

At Volvo, safety is not a feature. It's our purpose. Rigorous crash testing. Decades of learning from real accidents. Innovations that help prevent accidents before they happen and help protect you when they occur. Going above and beyond industry standards. A vision of zero collisions.

Volvo's legacy revolves around you because safety is about helping to keep you and everyone around you safe for life. Learn more at bolvocars.ca.ca. Welcome back. Before the break, we talked about the history of the monuments and what the proclamations actually say and what they mean. Now, we need to talk about the why. And the Trump administration has offered several reasons. So first, it says the Biden era monuments included scenic landscapes, geological formations, archeological resources, and other features that the administration doesn't believe qualify as distinct objects of historic or scientific interest under the Antiquities Act. It also says some of the resources found within the larger boundaries are common elsewhere in the American West or are already covered by laws protecting archaeological sites, historic properties, endangered species, wilderness study areas, and other resources. The administration also argues that maintaining smaller monuments will allow the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service to concentrate their funding and personnel on the particular sites that remain inside the boundaries. The administration said the agency's current resources are not sufficient to properly manage all of the land included in the previous boundaries. And then finally, the proclamations identify potential deposits of coal and minerals in the newly excluded areas, saying that allowing access to these resources, such as uranium, copper, coal, nickel, and other minerals could support domestic production and reduce reliance on foreign sources.

Utah's governor, Spencer Cox, the state's attorney general. and Republican leaders in the Utah legislature are among those who support the new boundaries. They have argued similar to the administration that the earlier monuments covered more land than was necessary under the Antiquities Act and that the smaller boundaries will allow federal agencies to focus their resources on particular cultural, historical, and scientific sites. However, tribal representatives and conservation organizations disagree. The Bears' Ears Intertribal Coalition, which represents five. sovereign tribal nations has historically argued that bears ears should be managed as they

managed as a connected cultural landscape rather than only as a collection of individual archaeological sites. It also says the broader landscape contains relationships among cultural sites as well as natural resources and areas that are still used by tribal communities. Conservation groups argue that laws protecting individual archaeological resources, species or wilderness studies area, study areas don't provide the same management structure as monument status. And they argue that allowing new mining claims, leases, roads, or developments on these newly excluded lands could affect cultural and environmental resources that are outside the new smaller boundaries. Earth justice, which represents groups involved in the legal disputes over

monuments, has said that it intends to challenge Trump's proclamations. And so that, of course, brings us to the legal question behind all of this, which is, does the Antiquities Act allow a president to reduce or revoke a national monument established by an earlier president? And the Antiquities Act expressly authorizes a president to declare national monuments and reserve federal land around the monument. But it doesn't expressly say whether a later president can remove land from a monument or eliminate the designation. Now, the administration's position is that the authority to identify protected objects and determine the smallest area necessary to manage them also includes the authority to reconsider an earlier president's conclusions. And under that interpretation, a president might determine that certain features don't qualify for protection or that the previous monument included more land than the law

allows. Now, we know that presidents have reduced monument boundaries in the past, including Trump himself in his first term, but the courts haven't issued a final decision resolving how far that authority extends under the Antiquities Act. The lawsuits that were filed during Trump's first term over his previous reductions were eventually put on hold because Biden then put the larger boundaries in place in 2021, so the issue was just never decided. So here's the deal. This is what's currently going on. The smaller boundaries are now in effect unless a court blocks or changes these proclamations. The land will remain primarily under federal management, but beginning September 11th, it'll again be governed by the broader public land mining and leasing laws that are applicable to those areas. And any specific mining, drilling, land sale, road, grazing authorization or development proposal would still go through the legal process that applies to that particular activity and location, but applications would be open.

All right, let's do some quick hitters. A federal appeals court revived more than 500 lawsuits, alleging that acetaminopin use during pregnancy is linked to autism and ADHD and children. The second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a lower court improperly threw out testimony from scientific experts that provided evidence of a link between Tylenol and pregnancy-related issues. The judge, who wrote on behalf of the panel, said that the lower court had overstepped in excluding the evidence. Quote, when an expert reliably applies a scientifically accepted methodology on an issue that is reasonably subject to debate, it is for the jury to decide the opinion's correctness. And quote. So the case will now return to the lower court to allow the plaintiff's expert testimony to be considered as the case moves forward. E. Jean Carroll has received about $5.63 million from President Trump following a 23 civil jury verdict that found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming her. That amount includes the original $5 million award plus interest. A federal judge authorized this payment after the Supreme Court declined to take up Trump's appeal of that verdict.

Now, I know a lot of you have questions about this case and you want to know exactly what the jury found and what the evidence was that was presented, all of that. I do have a full special report on this case that I released back in 2023. I covered everything there. That is by May 10th, 2020 special report. What I will say here, because a lot of people get this confused, Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation. That's different than being convicted. Convictions happen in criminal cases. This was a civil case.

Also, the jury did not find him liable for rape. It found him liable for sexual abuse instead. Those were separate possible findings on the verdict form, and they're not legally interchangeable. So the right way to say it is that he was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation. But again, go check out my May 10th, 2020, special report if you want the full deep dive. Michigan health officials are saying lettuce has repeatedly come up in its investigation into the cyclospora outbreak. Officials are advising consumers to buy whole heads of lettuce, discard the outer leaves, wash the rest thoroughly, and avoid bagged lettuce and pre-mixed salad kits.

for now. Consumer prices fell 0.4% from May to June, the largest monthly drop in four years after rising 0.5% in May. Year over year, inflation fell to 3.5% down from 4.2% in May. The drop was driven partly by easing gas prices tied to U.S. Iran negotiations. However, renewed fighting and higher oil prices could reverse some of that relief. Supreme Court justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney-Barrant made a rare appearance before a House appropriations panel to support the court's request for more security funding, about a 10% budget increase. They cited a rise in threats against judges and their families, and it was the first time the justices had testified before Congress since 2019. Former President Biden will publish a new memoir called Promise Me America, which is expected to

cover various topics, including the pandemic. January 6th, the war in Afghanistan. Why, He chose to run for re-election, why he chose to step aside, and more. That'll be available on November 17th. The U.S. Mint has begun producing a new $1 commemorative coin featuring President Trump's face as part of America's 250th birthday celebration. The Treasury says the coin will have a gold-colored finish but won't actually be made of real gold. It's expected to be released this fall. Now, here's the deal. Federal law generally limits putting living people on U.S. money.

But the Treasury Department has argued that the law doesn't apply to this particular coin. So when it comes to paper money, federal law says only the portrait of a dead person can appear on U.S. currency and securities. However, there's a 2020 law that allows for special coins for America's 250th anniversary specifically. That law says that for the 250th anniversary coin series, the reverse side of the coin can't include a head and shoulders portrait or bust of anyone and can't include a portrait of a living person. But the Treasury Department's argument is that Trump's picture is on the front side of the coin.

So the coin doesn't actually violate the law. So that's the legal, little bit of legal analysis there. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee as he seeks confirmation to become Attorney General permanently. He faced questions about the department's handling of the Epstein files, the anti-weaponization fund, and more. One moment from the hearing that has drawn particular attention was when he referred to himself as the president's attorney. He quickly corrected himself and said he was the president's attorney. The reason that remark stood out is because the attorney general is generally understood to represent the United States, not the president personally. The House voted 308 to 117 to pass the Sunshine Protection Act, which would make daylight saving time permanent nationwide and end the

twice a year clock changes. The bill would keep clocks shifted one hour ahead year round, though states with existing standard time exemptions like Hawaii and most of Arizona could stay on standard time. And now we'll head to the Senate where the future is unclear, but Trump has said he would sign it if it reaches his desk. And by the way, a similar bill passed the Senate unanimously in 2022. It stalled in the House, though, and it never became law. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that service members aged 30 and old. older will be screened annually for testosterone deficiency as part of their regular health assessments, and those low in testosterone will be offered optional testosterone replacement therapy.

Younger troops can opt in voluntarily. Hegseth framed the policy as a readiness and health measures saying it's not meant for artificial enhancement. We will revisit this quick hitter in the critical thinking segment in just a minute. During an appearance on the Joe Rogan experience, Vice President Vance said the Trump administration, quote, absolutely screwed up, end quote, its communications around the Epstein files and said the administration should have released everything immediately. However, he said he didn't believe the handling of the files was meant to hide information. His exact words were, quote, I say this with all candor, like we absolutely screwed up the comms of the Epstein files, like we just did. But do I think the reason

we screwed up the comms is because we were trying to hide something? No. And quote. And finally, a White House technical assistant who has, has operated President Trump's teleprompter since 2016 is reportedly in talks with federal regulators to settle allegations that he used advanced knowledge of Trump's prepared speeches to make more than $100,000 on Colchie prediction markets. Sources told ABC News that federal investigators with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission found that Perez placed bets tied to the state of the union and more than a dozen other Trump speeches over a three-month period. A White House spokesperson said the staffer is

cooperating with the CFTC while the CFTC declined to comment. According to ABC, possible settlement terms being discussed would require Perez to return the profits and refrain from making similar trades. All right, for today's critical thinking segment, let's go back to the announcement by Defense Secretary Heggseth about screening for low testosterone and offering optional testosterone replacement therapy. When I reported on this in my 90 second nightcap last night on social media. Someone commented and said this. Quote, so this administration is for gender affirming care. I thought they made a big stink about not giving people testosterone or whatever. Will the female service members also have an option to test their hormones? End quote. And I want to use those

questions as the foundation for today's critical thinking segment. So my first challenge for you is to make the argument for why this is and isn't gender affirming care. Now, the general definition of gender affirming care is, quote, a range of social, psychological, behavioral, and medical interventions designed to support and affirm an individual's gender identity, end quote. And I know some people take issue with the term gender affirming care, but for purposes of this exercise, just play it out. I want you to make the strongest argument you can that testosterone replacement therapy

for a man with low testosterone could be considered gender affirming care. Then make the strongest argument that it should not be considered gender affirming care and use that general definition I gave you or if you want to use a different definition, go ahead, but just make sure it's some sort of definition of gender affirming care. Next, I want you to think about the female service members. Should the female service members also be offered a routine screening for hormone related conditions as part of their annual assessments. If so, what would that look like? If you think there are certain medical differences that make that kind of comparison less direct, what is it? Why? Those are my questions for you. And that's what I have for you. Thank you so

much for being here. As always, I appreciate you very, very, very much. I hope you have a great weekend and I will talk to you on Monday.