UNBIASED - July 2, 2026: Trump's $1B Crypto Income, Supreme Court Takes AR-15 Case, DOJ's Institutionalization Memo, USPS Mail Ballot Rule Blocked, GOOD NEWS, and More.

Episode Date: July 2, 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: Supreme Court Will Hear Case Involving Constitutionality of Banning AR-15s and Semiautomatic Firearms (0:48) Judge Blocks New USPS Proposed Rule Re: Mail Ballots (4:03) Trump Administration Seemingly Moving Toward Resuming 'Press 3' Option for LGBTQ+ (9:30) DOJ Issues Memo Regarding Institutionalization. Here's What You Need to Know. (~15:57) Quick Hitters (~26:47) Rumor Has It (~35:33) GOOD NEWS (~41:28) Critical Thinking Segment (~44:35) Happy Birthday America! Fourth of July Facts and History (~46:08) ⁠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, July 2nd, and we're talking about a new Second Amendment case on the Supreme Court's docket, a judge blocking USPS from moving forward with a new controversial mail ballot rule, the possible return of the press three option of the 988 crisis hotline, the new DOJ memo regarding disabilities, and much more. Now, because Monday's episode was solely focused on Supreme Court decisions, or I guess it was Tuesday's episode, we are going to be playing catch up a bit in this episode because there are a few things from the end of last week and the beginning of this week that we need to talk

about that we weren't able to cover on Tuesday. But first, let's start with some more Supreme Court news. Just when you thought we were finished talking about the Supreme Court, I do have another story for you. The Supreme Court has decided to take up a big, Second Amendment case. And this one involves the constitutionality of bans on AR-15-style rifles and semi-automatic rifles. Now, before we get into the exact issue presented by these cases, I do just want to note that we did kind of see this one coming. Last year, the Supreme Court turned down a request to consider the constitutionality of laws that ban semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, and three justices, justices Thomas Alito and Gorsuch, all kind of indicated that

they would have granted that petition for review. And Justice Kavanaugh wrote that the Supreme Court, quote, should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon in the next term or two. And, quote, and of course, here we are. So on Tuesday, the justices agreed to take up these two cases, both cases involve laws that restrict AR-15-style rifles and similar semi-automatic firearms. One is a Connecticut law. The other is a county law in Cook County, Illinois. And these challenges are arguing, these challengers are arguing that these laws violate the Second Amendment because AR-15s and similar rifles are commonly owned for lawful purposes. Now, the government's defending the laws, they argue that these restrictions are constitutional and that these types of

firearms can be limited because of the public safety concerns that come with them, especially given their use in some mass shootings. Now, the most important case in the background of these two cases is, of course, Bruin. In 2022, the Supreme Court said that the government has to show that a gun restriction is consistent with the nation's historical tradition. of firearm regulation. And ever since Bruin, lower courts have been applying that test to different gun laws, including these AR-15 style rifle bands. So in the Connecticut case, the lower courts declined to block the law. And the Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and said that Connecticut's restrictions were consistent with the country's historical tradition of firearms regulation.

And a similar thing happened in the Cook County case. So now the Supreme Court, is stepping in. And the question for the justices will be, does the Second Amendment protect the right to possess AR-15-style rifles and similar semi-automatic rifles? So the court will hear arguments during its next term, which starts in October, and then we'll get a decision at some point thereafter. If I had to guess, I would guess that that'll probably be a June 2027 decision, but who knows? In the meantime, these laws, Connecticut and Cook County remain in place. And just in case I wasn't clear on this, these two cases will be heard together. So whenever oral arguments do happen, these two cases

will be heard at the same time. The next story, a federal judge has blocked the U.S. Postal Service from moving forward with proposed new rules for mail-in ballots. Now, I briefly covered this story in the quick hitter segment last week, but I know a lot of people had questions about this proposed rule. So I do want to use this as an opportunity. just to talk about it a bit more. Earlier this year, President Trump signed an executive order dealing with election integrity and mail voting. As part of that, the Postal Service proposed a new rule for federal elections. And that proposed rule would create new USPS standards for mail-in and absentee ballots in federal, general, special, and runoff elections. So for example,

States or authorized election officials would have to use a new USPS federal ballot mail portal to tell USPS which voters are being sent mail-in or absentee ballots. For each voter, the state would have to provide the voter's name, address, the unique barcode on the outbound ballot envelope being sent to the voter. the unique barcode on the return ballot envelope the voter would use to send the ballot back, and the originating election office state. The rule would also require both the outbound ballot envelope and the return ballot envelope to meet certain USPS design standards. So they would need to include the official election mail logo, be compatible with USPS automation equipment, include a unique, intelligent mail barcode.

They would have to undergo USPS review for envelope design and barcode placement. Timing-wise, election officials would generally have to submit the voter barcode information at least 30 days before the federal election to the extent practicable or by the date when ballots are allowed to start being mailed under state law. They could keep adding or modifying voters on the list until the last day ballots may be mailed out under state law. then USPS would review outbound ballot mail before accepting it. So USPS says it would check whether the ballot mailing meets the envelope standards and whether the ballots are being sent to people enrolled on that state's USPS participation list, mail in an absentee participation list. USPS says it wouldn't decide whether someone is actually eligible to vote.

It would only check whether the person is on that state submitted list. Furthermore, if a state did not certify the required information or if the ballot mail didn't comply with the new standards, USPS wouldn't accept and transmit that outbound ballot mail. Now, these last two points we just went over are what made this rule controversial, because under the rule, if a voter wasn't included on the state's USPS mail-in and an absentee participation list, USPS would not mail out a ballot for that voter. If a state didn't submit the required certification, USPS wouldn't accept outbound federal ballot mail from authorized ballot mailers in that state. And if a ballot mailing didn't comply with the new standards, USPS wouldn't accept it and would return it to the ballot mailer to fix the errors. Now, the postal service has said the goal was to create more uniform ballot mail procedures, improved tracking, and help enforce federal election law. but the NAACP sued and they argued that the Postal Service was violating a previous 2021 settlement agreement from litigation filed during the 2020 election cycle. So back in August 2020, the NWACP

sued USPS. This was during COVID. Obviously, the election cycle was happening during the pandemic. This was during that time because there were concerns about mail delays and whether mail and ballots would be delivered in time. That lawsuit was ultimately settled in 2021. And under that settlement, USPS agreed to keep certain election mail safeguards in place through the 2028 election cycle. And this included prioritizing the monitoring and timely delivery of election mail. So in this case, the NAACP is saying, hold on, this new proposed rule doesn't prioritize the timely delivery of election mail in the way that USPS agreed to. And the judge agreed with the NACP. The judge said that the Postal Service could not claim that it was prioritizing the

timely delivery of election mail while also adopting a policy that would allow the agency to refuse to accept and deliver certain ballots or potentially not mail ballots to any voters in a state that failed to certify the required list. So for now, the proposed rule is blocked from moving forward, but the administration can appeal. And it's also important to note that this was still a proposed rule It was not a final rule. So this wasn't taking effect immediately. It was a proposal from USPS that would have had to move through the standard rulemaking process before being finalized. But because of this ruling, USPS cannot continue moving forward with that rulemaking process unless the ruling is changed or lifted.

Okay. Next story. The Trump administration is moving to restart the specialized LGBTQ plus option. for the youth and young adults who contact the 988 crisis hotline. This time, though, it'll likely be without the Trevor Project. So a little bit of background on the 988 hotline first. The 98 suicide and crisis lifeline is something that launched in 2022. It's a federally funded resource for people experiencing either mental health, substance

abuse, or suicidal crises. President Trump signed the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act into law in October 2020. And that is the law that designated 988 as the three-digit dialing code to be used for a nationwide suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline. So when the 988 line was ultimately launched in 2022 under the Biden administration, it included multiple call-in options. So veterans would press one, Spanish speakers would press two, and then option three would specifically direct callers to counselors who were trained to work with LGBTQ people who were under 25 years old. The Trevor Project, which is a nonprofit that focuses on suicide prevention and crisis intervention

for LGBTQ youth, was the main contact center that partnered with the 988 Lifeline to provide this option three support. So if someone called 988 hit the three option, some of the time they would be directed to someone from the Trevor Project. And to give you numbers as to how this broke down, between 2022 and 2024, agency data showed that of the more than 14.5 million people who called, texted, or sent chats to the 988 hotline and were transferred to a crisis contact center, roughly 1.3 million of those people were routed to the LGBTQ specialized service by pressing option three, and the Trevor project handled about half of that, you know, option three traffic. But in June of last year, the substance abuse and

mental health services administration, SAMHSA, announced that it would no longer, quote, silo LGBT plus youth services to focus on serving all help seekers, including those previously served through the Press 3 option. And quote, and the administration's reasoning at the time was that the Press 3 option was specifically established as a pilot program in fiscal year 2022 under a government agreement with the Trevor Project. But the funds that were appropriated to that program had been exhausted and therefore the option was being terminated.

So with that announcement, Press 3 was no longer offered as a specific call-in option, but all callers could still call 9-88 and get help from count. counselors. And then separately, the Trevor Project announced that it would still be running its own crisis hotline to help those specifically looking for LGBTQ counselors. Now, though, the administration says it's working to bring this press three option back by the end of this year. It appears to be because Congress directed funding for it. So a letter written last month by SAMHSA, it was written to a member of Congress, says fiscal year 2026 appropriations include restoring 33.1.1.1.5. It was written to a member of Congress, says fiscal year 2026 appropriations include restoring $33.1 million for specialized LGBTQ plus youth

services, including the 988 press 3 option. It also requires LGBTQ plus youth cultural competency training and a system to route LGBTQ plus youth to a specialty organization. The SAMHSA letter said it's still figuring out how to implement that while complying with Trump's executive order on gender ideology. Now, as for why the Trevor Project might not be involved this time around, the issue has to do with which organizations are currently allowed to apply to help operate this possibly restored service. According to reporting, those applications are limited to crisis centers that are currently active in the 988 network. And because the Trevor Project is no longer active in that network after, you know, the Press 3 option was shut down, it might not be

eligible to apply. Let's take our first break here. When we come back, we will talk about this new DOJ memo regarding institutionalization for people with disabilities and much more. Welcome back. So there's a lot of fear stemming from the DOJ's new memo on institutionalization of people with disabilities. And I've received a lot of requests to talk about it. So let's do that. First and foremost, what we are talking about here is a legal opinion from the DOJ's office. of legal counsel or OLC. This is the office that gives legal advice inside the executive branch. Now, this opinion in particular is a slip opinion, which just means that this is the

released version of the opinion before it's formally published in OLC's official opinion volumes. OLC opinions are written to answer questions from the counsel to the president about how certain laws should be read. This opinion is titled application of the rehabilitation. Act and Americans with Disabilities Act to state institutionalization of patients with severe mental illness or disabilities. And it deals with two federal laws, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA. Section 504 bans disability

discrimination in programs that receive federal financial assistance. Title two of the ADA applies disability discrimination protections to public entities. So state, state, and local government services. The specific question in this memo is whether those laws require states to provide care to people with serious mental illnesses or disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. And that phrase most integrated setting is really important here. The most integrated setting means the setting that allows a person with a disability to live

and interact with non-disabled people. much as possible. So in this context, we're typically talking about the difference between someone receiving care in an institution versus receiving care in a community-based setting, a group home, supported housing, some other less restrictive environment. Now, the memo says DOJ and HHS regulations have long required covered entities to administer programs in the most integrated setting appropriate and that the DOJ previously defined that as a setting that lets disabled individuals interact with non-disabled individuals to the fullest extent possible. And that idea is often called the integration mandate. So for years, the federal government has used that integration

mandate along with a Supreme Court case called Olmstead to push states away from unnecessary institutionalization and toward community-based care. So quickly, let's talk about what Olmsted stands for. Olmstead was a 1999 Supreme Court case that involved two women in Georgia who had mental disabilities and had been put into a state psychiatric facility. Both women alleged that Georgia officials violated the ADA by keeping them in the institution, even after professionals who had treated them, determined that community-based placement was more appropriate for them. And the Supreme Court ultimately held that unjustified institutional isolation of people with disabilities can be a form of discrimination under Title II of the ADA. That holding became a major disability

rights precedent. For disability advocates, Olmsted stands for the idea that people with disabilities shouldn't be unnecessarily segregated in institutions when they can otherwise safely and appropriately receive care in the community. But this is where we're where the new DOJ memo comes in. The memo says that Olmsted has been read too broadly. According to OLC, Olmstead did not hold that the ADA or Rehabilitation Act requires states to treat people in the most integrated setting appropriate for their needs. Instead, OLC says that the actual holding was narrower than that. That unjustified institutional isolation can be discrimination, but that doesn't automatically mean states must always provide care

in the most integrated setting possible. So the memo is essentially drawing a distinction between two ideas, right? On one hand, you have the idea that you can't institutionalize someone without a legitimate reason. And the memo agrees with that. But on the other hand, you have the idea that if a more integrated community setting is appropriate and available, the state has to provide that setting. And the memo rejects that idea as a general legal mandate. So the DOJ is basically now saying that neither the ADA nor the Rehabilitation Act impose this integration mandate that DOJ and HHS have relied on since Olmstead. The memo says that over the past two decades, DOJ's civil rights division relied on this integration mandate and Olmstead to pressure states into discharging people

from mental health institutions. So based on this memo, the executive branch appears to be moving away from the theory that the DOJ has used to pressure states into deinstitutionalization and community-based treatment agreements. Now, what might this look like in real life? Okay, so let's kind of play it out. Imagine there's an adult that has a developmental disability who lives in a state-run institution. under the broader Olmstead integration mandate approach, if professionals determine that this person could appropriately live in a community-based setting, a group home, a supported apartment, some other supervised living arrangement, the state might be more vulnerable to legal action by the government if it keeps that person institutionalized anyway. That could mean a lawsuit. It could mean a DOJ enforcement

action. It can mean something else that's that's essentially requiring the state to move that person toward a more integrated setting. However, under this new DOJ memo's view, the state might actually have more room to argue that continued institutional care is not discrimination if it can point to a non-discriminatory reason for that placement. So maybe the state says that the person requires a higher level of supervision. Maybe the state cites safety concerns. Maybe the state says that community placements aren't currently available, things like that. Under the memo's reasoning, those are the kinds of factors that could support institutional care without automatically making it disability discrimination. So under the older, broader approach, the DOJ could use the ADA

to push states to create more community placements, to reduce unnecessary institutionalization, to enter agreements requiring discharge planning for certain individuals. But under this new members approach, the DOJ seems to be saying that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act don't automatically require that kind of maximal integration. Now, states cannot institutionalize someone for no reason, okay, but the federal government may now be less likely to challenge states on that basis. OLC's argument here is that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act prohibit disability discrimination. But discrimination means treating similarly situated people differently because of a disability without enough justification. So OLC says institutional care can be discriminatory if it's unjustified, but it's not automatically discriminatory just because a more integrated setting exists.

Disability advocates, though, are saying, okay, but if the federal government moves away from the integration mandate, states might have more room to keep people in institutions instead of. of investing in community-based care. And the fear there is that the federal government is starting to back away from an interpretation of the ADA that has helped support community-based care and limit unnecessary institutionalization for more than 20 years. Now, as for the real-world effects, does this mean the DOJ and HHS are going to stop enforcing disability discrimination laws altogether? No, because that would just simply go too far. However, it is fair to say that this memo could change what kind of enforcement they pursue, right? Because for years, the DOJ and HHS relied on the integration mandate to push states toward community-based care. But this memo says the DOJ

now believes that that mandate wasn't actually imposed by the ADA or Rehabilitation Act and that the DOJ and HHS didn't have authority to create it through regulation. So the practical effect, like I talked about, it might be that the DOJ and HHS are just less likely to bring enforcement actions based solely on the idea that a state failed to provide the most integrated setting possible. Instead, the focus might shift to whether the institutionalization is unjustified or discriminatory. And under the memo's reasoning, states might now have more room to defend institutional care by pointing to those non-discriminatory reasons that we talked about. But again, just to be clear, this does not mean that states can now institutionalize people for no reason. it doesn't mean people no longer have the ability to bring claims of discrimination in court.

It means the DOJ and HHS are most likely less likely to bring enforcement actions solely on the idea that a state failed to provide the most integrated setting possible. Some of you ask whether this opinion is something that can be challenged in court. The answer is not really because an OLC opinion is an internal executive branch legal opinion. It tells, you know, agencies within the executive branch how to act, how to act, how to act. how to enforce. However, if the DOJ or HHS takes action based on this memo, so rescinds regulations, withdraws guidance, changes enforcement practices in some definitive way, denies a claim based on this new interpretation, that agency action could be challenged in court. And the memo itself says that any final agency action adopting OLC's view in this memo could face litigation

under federal law. In fact, the memo acknowledges that its view here is not aligned with how federal courts have understood the Olmsted case. The memo says the vast majority of federal appeals courts have treated Olmsted as requiring community-based treatment when three things are true. When professionals say community placement is appropriate, when the person doesn't oppose community placement, and when the state can reasonably make community placement work. So hopefully that gives you a better understanding of what this memo actually is. It's always my goal to answer all of your questions, and I can only hope that I did that. Now, let's move on to quick hitters. We do have quite a few today, starting with President Trump's new Air Force One plane. So President Trump took

his first flight aboard the new Boeing 747.8I that will serve as Air Force One when he's on board. That was a plane that was donated by Qatar refurbished for presidential use and is expected to temporarily fill the role while the long-delayed replacement Air Force One planes are still being completed. Trump flew to North Dakota for the opening of the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library. And speaking of President Trump, he announced that Republicans will hold their first ever national midterm convention in Dallas this September. The event is scheduled for September 9th and 10th at the American Airlines Center, and it's meant to help energize Republican voters ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. California just became the first state to ban consumer-facing sell-by labels on most

packaged foods. Starting July 1st, foods sold in the state generally has to use clearer labels like best if used by or use-by, and food manufacturers can choose to use either label or both. The goal is to reduce confusion because sell-by dates are usually meant for stores, not consumers, and it can lead people to throw away food that might still be safe to eat. There are exceptions under this law for things like eggs, beer, and baby formula, which is regulated separately under federal law. Chinese tech and e-commerce company, Alibaba Group, has agreed to pay $600 million to resolve DOJ allegations that it failed to prevent the illegal sales of pharmaceuticals, controlled substances, listed chemicals, and pill presses into the United States through Alibaba.

dot com and Ali Express. DoJ says Alibaba admitted that from 2016 to 2024 merchants used its platforms for about 80,000 sales involving illegal imports with a combined value of more than $200 million. As part of this non-prosecution agreement, Alibaba and its payment processor accepted responsibility, agreed to pay penalties and forfeitures, and promised to strengthen their compliance programs. And former Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton agreed to plead guilty to illegally retaining classified national defense information. Bolton was originally charged with 18 counts related to classified materials, including diary-style notes that he shared with relatives while writing a memoir. But he pleaded guilty to one count as part of a deal with the DOJ. The agreement

includes a $2.25 million fine forfeiting his federal retirement pay. a debriefing with intelligence officials and up to 100 hours of community service. Bolton is scheduled to be sentenced on October 28th, and while this plea deal could help him avoid prison time, the judge will ultimately decide his sentence. Former CIA director John Brennan is suing the DOJ and several Trump administration officials asking a federal judge to order the government to preserve records tied to reported criminal investigations involving him. Brennan has not yet been charged with a crime, but his lawyers say that if charges are eventually brought, those records could be important to arguing the

case was politically motivated, vindictive, or selective. The DOJ is not confirming whether an investigation exists, as is normal practice. But a DOJ spokesperson pushed back on Brennan's claims saying it's quote unquote, certainly rich that Brennan is accusing anyone of a retribution campaign. Open AI is reportedly in early talks about giving the U.S. government a 5% ownership stake in the company, which would be worth about $42.6 billion based on a funding round in March that valued the company at $852 billion. According to a reporting from the Financial Times, the idea is part of a broader proposal that could also involve other major USAI companies giving the government similar stakes. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has argued that the arrangement would allow the public to share in the

financial upside of AI. And last month, President Trump did tell reporters that he was, he was planning to meet with top AI executives to discuss giving the public a stake in their companies. And hiring slowed in June with the U.S. economy adding 57,000 jobs down from 172,000 jobs in May. That came in below economists' expectations, though the unemployment rate still ticked down slightly from 4.3% to 4.2%. The biggest job gains came from professional and business services, which added 36,000 jobs, and health care. care, though healthcare hiring also slowed. Let's take our second and final break here.

When we come back, we will finish quick hitters because believe it or not, we still have more quick hitters to do. And then we'll do rumor has it, good news, critical thinking. And at the very end, I will leave you with some fun 4th of July facts. Welcome back. Continuing on with some quick hitters, the Trump administration will not extend the U.S.-Mexico Canada agreement in its current form. The trade deal, which Trump negotiated during his first.

term to replace NAFTA will remain in effect for now, but the decision starts a longer review process and creates some uncertainty over its future. U.S. officials say they want changes aimed at reducing trade deficits and bringing more manufacturing back to the United States. Canada and Mexico have both signaled they are open to continue negotiations, but businesses and industry groups are warning that a prolonged fight over the deal could create problems for North American supply chains. The two climbers who scaled the Empire State Building yesterday are expected to appear in court today. The pair were taken into custody Wednesday after spending several minutes at the top of the spire, where the man actually appeared to propose to the woman. Both are facing multiple charges,

including burglary, reckless endangerment, criminal trespass, and disorderly conduct. Trump accounts will officially launch on the 4th of July, which means eligible Americans can start contributing this weekend. As we've talked about in past episodes, Trump accounts are tax-deferred investment accounts for kids under 18, children born between January 1st, 2025 and December 31, 2028, who open an account are eligible for a $1,000 Treasury Department contribution. Families and other contributors can generally put in up to $5,000 per child per year, though the money usually can't be withdrawn until the child turns 18. And you can apply for an account if you're interested at Trump accounts.gov. Okay, it's time for rumor has it, my weekly segment where I do my best

to either confirm, dispel, or add context to recent rumors submitted by all of you. First one, President Trump made over $1 billion in crypto last year. This is true. As it pertains to his crypto-related income reported through his businesses. So here is what we know. According to President in Trump's 2025 financial disclosure, which was released by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, Trump reported more than $1 billion in income or proceeds tied to crypto-related ventures. The filing itself lists roughly $635 million in royalties through CIC Digital's license fees for NFTs and meme coins. It lists roughly $197 million in net proceeds tied to stable coin Holdco. It also lists multiple World Liberty financial related entries, including roughly $65 million

from an equity sale and roughly $236 million from token sales and roughly $290 million in other token sale proceeds. Adding these numbers together, you get more than $1 billion. A big chunk of this money obviously came from two places, the roughly $635 million in royalties through CIC Digital LLC, which the disclosure describes as involving license. fees for NFTs and meme coins. And then second, the roughly $236 million from token sales related to World Liberty Financial, which is a crypto venture linked to Trump and his sons. It lists Trump as a co-founder, emeritus, basically an honorary founder title. And then it lists his sons as co-founders. Now, a few of you have asked what kind of conflict of interest this presents

and whether this is legal. The answer is it's complicated, as with anything in the law. So the biggest conflict of interest concern here is that Trump is obviously in a position to influence federal crypto policy while he and his family have major financial interests in crypto-related ventures. His administration obviously oversees agencies like the SEC, FTC, Treasury, the Justice Department, all of which can affect the crypto industry through regulation, enforcement, banking decisions, stable coin rules, sanctions, investigations, et cetera. So there's an obvious conflict of interest concern if a crypto-related policy also benefits the businesses connected to the president or his family. As far as the legality of it, though, it's not automatically legal.

Presidents are generally exempt from the main federal criminal conflict of interest statute that applies to most executive branch officials. So the fact that a president has a financial interest affected by federal policy doesn't by itself violate that specific conflict of interest law. At the same time, that doesn't mean there are no legal. limits at all, right? Pribority laws still apply. Financial disclosure rules still apply. Securities and fraud laws could apply depending on the facts. If money or benefits are coming from foreign governments or foreign government linked entities, that can raise questions under the

Constitution's emoluments clause. Those those questions would also be pretty legally complicated. So yes, these crypto ventures do raise conflict of interest concerns, but whether any part of it is actually illegal would depend on much. more specific evidence, a quid pro quo, a disclosure violation, fraud, a constitutionally prohibited foreign benefit, something like that. But to answer the initial rumor, yes, Trump's 2025 financial disclosure shows more than $1 billion in crypto-related income and proceeds connected to his businesses. Next one, birthright citizenship could be overturned with legislation. This is false. Now, after the Supreme Court struck down Trump's birthright citizenship order, Trump, Trump,

posted on truth social, quote, the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, which is too bad for our country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through legislation with the support of the president that has now been determined during this process. No long and unwieldy constitutional amendment is necessary. Congress should start today to work on ending expensive and unfair to our country birthright citizenship. They will have my complete and total support, end quote. The thing is, this would need a constitutional amendment. Congress could not do this alone. Congress cannot overturn a constitutional right with only a bill. Now that the Supreme Court has weighed in on what the Constitution says regarding who's entitled to birthright citizenship to actually change a constitutional

rule, there would either need to be a constitutional amendment or a future Supreme Court decision interpreting the 14th Amendment differently. Now, Congress could try to pass a bill limited birthright citizenship to certain babies born in the United States, but that would almost certainly 99.99 and 99% certainly trigger another court fight. It would most likely be struck down in light of Trump v. Barbara. The other avenue Congress could take is passing laws dealing with related issues. So visa fraud, birth right or birth tourism, as they call it. And even then, those would also trigger another court fight. But no, Congress can't overturn birthright citizenship with a bill. Last one. The Trump administration is considering 250 pardons for the 250th anniversary.

This one needs context. The Atlantic reported that the White House is reportedly discussing a plan for Trump to issue up to 250 pardons to mark America's 250th anniversary. But the report also said This is a push from aides and interns within the White House, not the president himself, and that this proposal hadn't been presented to the president yet. So it's unclear if the president even knows about this potential proposal. In some good news, the U.S. men's soccer team is moving on in the World Cup after beating Bosnia and Herzegovina. The U.S. won two to zero. It was the team's first World Cup knockout stage win since 2002.

But what makes this win even more impressive? And I guess this is kind of bad news. But it's that the United States had to play a pretty big chunk of the second half down one player after its leading goal score was shown a red card. I don't know. I watched the game. I really didn't agree with that call. But who am I to say? So the United States will play Belgium in the next round on Monday.

I have no doubt that the men's team will show up and show. show out. In some more good news, a dad who gave up his dream car decades ago to support his growing family just got the best surprise from his youngest son. So after returning home from Vietnam, Daniel Ellen bought his dream car. It was a white 1969 Mustang Mach 1. Alan told the story of how he used to drive it on dates with his future wife. He even proposed to her in the car. But after they had six sons, the two-door Mustang didn't make much sense anymore. So he saw, he saw. sold it to make room for a family car. Well, his youngest son, Shane, never forgot all of those stories that his dad told him. And this year, he secretly tracked down a nearly identical Mustang.

He traded in one of his own classic cars just to get it. He restored it to look just like his dad's original and then he's surprised his dad with it for Father's Day. Shane said the gift wasn't really about the car. It was about thanking his parents for everything they sacrificed while raising six boys. Next one, Michigan is on its way to passing a law to protect lemonade stands. Last summer, three brothers were told they'd have to pay nearly $400 in permits and licensing fees just to keep running their lemonade stand. But instead of giving up, they met with their state representative. They testified before lawmakers. They explained why the rules just didn't make sense for kids who were trying to earn a little spending money.

And the lawmakers listened. The Michigan House unanimously passed a bill that would exempt kids from those permit requirements for smaller lemonade stands and similar businesses. as long as they're selling simple drinks and making less than $5,000 a year. The bill does still have to pass the Senate, but it's a big step in the right direction. And finally, in the midst of all of the devastating news out of Venezuela after last week's earthquakes, a man was pulled out alive from the rubble of a collapsed shopping center eight days after the earthquakes hit. He had been trapped in the basement and rescue crews from six. several countries worked for days to get to him. They were able to get to him through tubing. So

they were able to line tubing down and get him water while they dug down. They eventually reached him and they carried him out on a stretcher. Obviously, the situation in Venezuela is absolutely heartbreaking, but this is undoubtedly good news in the midst of sadness. Now, for today's critical thinking segment, I want to go back to the story about Trump and his crypto-related income. Here's the first question. Should presidents be allowed to keep ownership in private businesses while in office if they publicly disclose their financial interests? Or should they be required to sell, divest, or place those assets in a truly independent,

blind trust? Then my follow-up question is, if you were writing the rule, what would it be? Would you require presidents to sell off only certain assets before taking office? Would you only require divestment from industries directly affected by your? federal policy. Would you allow family members to keep running the businesses? Would a blind trust be enough? Or is full transparency and letting voters decide the better solution? So think about what your rule would be. I also want you to think about how practical your rule is and whether it would actually work. By the way, if you love these critical thinking segments, I do this thing on

Instagram and Facebook where I post a critical thinking question of the day. At the end of you, I posted in the morning and at the end of each day, I share some of the responses to that day's question. My followers have been absolutely loving it, which tracks because the critical thinking segment on the podcast is a hit too. So if you want to challenge yourself on a daily basis, go ahead and follow Unbiased Jordan on Instagram or Unbiased Politics on Facebook. That's Unbiased Jordan on Instagram or Unbiased Politics on Facebook. Okay. Now, before I let you go, since Saturday is the 4th of July and not just any 4th of July. It is the 250th anniversary of America's independence. I want to leave you with a little bit of history. You know, I love to do it. I am a nerd for these kinds of things.

So first, most people think that America became independent on July 4th, 1776. But technically, we became independent 250 years ago today, July 2nd. The Continental Congress actually voted for American independence on July 2nd, 1776. Two days later, on July 4th, it officially adopted the Declaration of Independence, which is, of course, the document that explains why the colonies were separating from Great Britain. But that date is the one that stuck. And July 4th officially became a federal holiday in 1870. It became a paid holiday for federal employees in 1938, so not too long ago, relatively.

And then this is one of my favorite fun facts, John Adams, was convinced that Americans would celebrate July 2nd forever. In a July 3rd letter to his wife, Abigail, he wrote, quote, the second day of July 1776 will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. And quote, he then went on to describe how he thought future generations would celebrate. And he wrote, quote, it ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade with shoes, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.

End quote. So Adams, you know, he got the celebration, right? Parades, fireworks, festivities, but he was off by two days. Whether you are spending this weekend with family, you're watching fireworks, you might be traveling, maybe you're just enjoying a day off. I hope you have a safe and happy 4th of July. As always, thank you for being here. And I will talk to you again on Monday.