UNBIASED - July 20, 2026: What Trump’s Election Security Documents Actually Show | Plus Rubio’s New Visa Policy and More.

Episode Date: July 20, 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: Trump's Election Security Address. Here's What The Documents Say. (0:49) Three U.S. Service Members Killed in the Middle East (~22:58) Rubio Announces New Visa Policy Aimed at Far-Left Terrorist Groups and Those Affiliated (~25:32) New Federal Rule Changes Definition of "Harm" from Endangered Special Act (~36:04) Quick Hitters (~44:25) Critical Thinking Segment (~47:51) ⁠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

The first ever all-electric 2026 Subaru Trail Seeker is the EV for the Trail Obsessed, with up to 444 kilometers on a full charge and DC fast charging from 10 to 80% in about 30 minutes in ideal conditions. Plus, ample ground clearance and symmetrical all-wheel drive make the 2026 Trail Seeker the most capable EV Subaru has ever built. Test drive it at your local Subaru dealer or visit Subaru.ca. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. It's Monday, July 20th, and we're talking about Trump's election security address, a new visa restriction policy, a new federal rule dealing with habitat destruction, and much,

much more. But before we do dive into today's stories, I would just love to ask you to go ahead and follow the podcast if you're not already following the show. It's really easy. There's a little button depending on which platform you listen on. It either says follow or subscribe. And once you click that, not only does it tell your phone, you know, to let you know as soon as new episodes go live, but it also helps me keep this show free. So thank you very much.

I know everyone appreciates you for doing that. I definitely appreciate you. So the first story in today's episode, President Trump used a primetime address Thursday night to release several groups of newly declassified. records involving foreign access to American voter data, cybersecurity weaknesses and election systems, a years-long voter registration investigation in Michigan, and a new DHS review of alleged non-citizens on state voter rolls. Trump has said that these records show serious threats to U.S. elections and that these serious threats were either downplayed or kept from him during his first administration. And because of these things, he called on Congress to pass the Save America Act.

He would like that law passed before the upcoming midterms. Trump has also directed the intelligence agencies like the DOJ and the FBI to investigate how some of that intelligence was handled. Now, before we get into any of it, I do want to be clear about the fact that Trump was not arguing that these documents prove that China changed vote totals or, or that voting machines were manipulated or that these documents prove that, you know, he actually won the 2020 election. That's not necessarily what this was about. We know that he has said before that the 2020 election was rigged and that he should have won that election. But this prime time address and these newly released documents are specifically about vulnerabilities in the system

and information that he believes should have been more fully reported at the time. It's also where kind of explaining what these documents actually are. So the release includes several different kinds of government records from different time periods. Some are formal intelligence assessments that were written by the National Intelligence Council back in 2020. Others are internal emails that show conversations and disagreements among intelligence officials at the time. There are also FBI interview summaries, investigative records, and closure documents from that Michigan case specifically. there are newer 2026 reports as well as summaries that were prepared by agencies like the CIA and DHS. So each type of document serves a different purpose.

So a formal intelligence assessment gives the intelligence community's judgment at that point in time. In internal email will really just show what's being talked about behind the scenes. An FBI interview memo will show what a witness said to investigators. And then you have a closure document, which will give an agency's final decision about whether the evidence supported a particular criminal case. So various documents were included in this release, and many of them are also still very redacted. In total, the White House released 269 pages. Some had been public before. Others were newly declassified. And they really covered those four main subjects that I kind of briefed at the very beginning of

the story. So China's collection of American voter data, potential vulnerabilities in voting systems, a voter registration investigation in Michigan, and the administrations claim that hundreds of thousands of non-citizens may be registered to vote. So all categories of documents were used to support Trump's argument that Congress has to pass the Save America Act. That was really the whole purpose of this address. Now, the first and probably biggest part of Trump's address was about China's access to American voter information. Trump said China obtained information connected to roughly two 220 million American voters and that voter data from at least 18 states had been compromised. Now, these numbers are supported in documents, but the documents are quite redacted.

So we don't know which government agency the reports came from. We don't know in full what these reports say. But to give me an example, one of the documents titled 18 states memo says that the PRC, People's Republic of China, analyzed U.S. voter registration data from 18 states. The document says this data contained personally identified. information like voter names, birthdays, home mailing address, political party affiliation, but the document also says that the data acquired varied by state. Again, it's not clear which agency agency wrote that document because it's mostly redacted. As for the 220 million number,

one of the intelligence reports titled 220 million voter records compromised says that a Chinese entity possessed a list of data that was believed to have been leaked or otherwise compromised. It says most of the entries on that list were targets in other countries, but a small portion featured entities in the United States and was primarily dated between 2009 and 2018. One entry on that list was an unspecified American voter data set containing 204 million records or about 45 gigabytes of information. That data set was dated 2016 and reportedly included things like voter's names, ages, phone numbers and addresses. That same report also lists several individual state voter databases.

So one of the entries had about 1.7 million records. Another one had 7.9 million. Another one had about 5.6 million. And again, the information included voter identification numbers, names, current and past addresses, birthdays, phone numbers, gender, and in at least one database, citizenship information. five other state databases were listed, but their sizing contents were marked unknown. So those records, when combined, 204 million, 1.7 million, 7.9 million, 5.6 million. That kind of helps explain the administration's rounded figure of roughly 220 million. But the documents also don't say whether any of those data sets overlap. And by the way, these documents show that the data was collected in different ways.

So some of the data might have come from breaches or leaks, but some was also publicly available and downloaded from commercial websites. And in some cases, it was even bought. So the information was obtained through various avenues. So there is evidence that Chinese actors collected large amounts of American voter registration information. And China possessing a large amount of voter information from Americans could certainly create privacy concerns, intelligence concerns, security concerns because that kind of data could potentially help a foreign government influence voters with, say, political messaging or something of that nature. But these documents don't show that China accessed voting machines. The documents don't show that China changed anyone's registration.

The documents don't show that China, you know, created ballots or altered any votes. Nothing like that. Just that China had access to voter information and that their access to that voter, information causes concern. The next part of Trump's address focused on how intelligence officials described China's actions during the 2020 election. And the documents show that there was a disagreement inside the intelligence community. So a national intelligence council assessment from August 2020 said China preferred that Trump lose the election and had increased its public criticism of his administration. But the broader intelligence community view, was that China hadn't actually launched a coordinated campaign to influence the election,

partly because Beijing was worried that doing so could backfire. Two intelligence officials, though, disagreed with that view. In an internal email, those two officials said that China had taken what they called low-level exploratory steps to hurt Trump politically and shape voter perceptions. And these two intelligence officials labeled that view as an alternative analysis, and acknowledged that most other analysts didn't agree. And this is really where election influence versus election interference comes in because they're two different things.

So election influence means trying to shape what voters think or how they see a certain candidate, right? Election interference involves the actual mechanics of an election like voter registration, ballots, counting votes, reporting votes, things like that. So trying to influence voters isn't the same thing as changing votes. But Trump's argument here is that the minority analysis of China was intentionally downplayed. And the main document supporting that argument is a November 2020 email in which an NSA analyst said that a pending president's daily briefing, which is a highly classified intelligence briefing prepared for the president, had been, quote unquote, deliberately massaged to avoid directly connecting the intelligence to the election. Another official called that process highly irregular, and an intelligence community ombudsman said it raised a concern involving analytic objectivity.

So that email does show that at least one intelligence product was intentionally worded to avoid making a direct election connection. However, because the document is heavily redacted, we don't know who made that decision, we don't know why it was made, we don't know what the final briefing ultimately said. So there's still unknown there. also discussed a new CIA summary involving Venezuela and electronic voting systems. This one didn't have to do with the United States. This had to do with Venezuela. So that report reviewed intelligence from 2004 through 2020. And what it said is that Venezuelan leaders had explored ways to manipulate elections through voting technology. And this included pre-programmed machines, systems that could replace legitimate information with altered data. However,

the CIA also said it couldn't definitively confirm that large-scale electronic fraud was successfully carried out in the Venezuelan elections it reviewed. For example, intelligence suggested Venezuela might have developed a plan to manipulate its 2012 presidential election. But the CIA ultimately determined that large-scale electronic fraud probably didn't happen. So the Venezuelan records show basically that voting technology can potentially be manipulated by a government that has enough access and control. But to be clear, those records do not have anything to do with the United States or, you know, United States elections. The next part of the speech focused on voting machines and election infrastructure. Trump said the documents proved that electronic voting machines and

ballot counting systems are extremely vulnerable and can be easily compromised. So one intelligence memo did say that foreign adversaries, including Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, have the technical capability to attack parts of American election infrastructure and said centralized systems like voter registration databases, electronic poll books, and election websites might be especially vulnerable. But that same intelligence memo that Trump cited said it would be difficult for a foreign government to manipulate enough systems across enough jurisdictions to actually change the outcome of a presidential election. And that's in part because American elections are highly decentralized, meaning they're administered by thousands of state and local jurisdictions that

use different equipment and procedures. Also, a lot of the voting systems aren't connected to the internet, and the vast majority of ballots actually produce a paper record that can be checked against the electronic count. So there are systems in place to prevent that kind of large-scale hacking. So the documents confirm that voting systems do face cyber threats and they need to be protected, but they don't necessarily show that anyone has successfully used those vulnerabilities to change the 2020 election. Trump then moved to a voter registration investigation in Michigan, and he said that FBI files showed evidence of fraud involving a large voter registration drive ahead of the 2020 election. So this investigation started after a city clerk received

six packages of registration applications in October 2020. Officials got a little suspicious because some of the applications had addresses that didn't exist or invalid phone numbers. Some of them had signatures that didn't match state records. Some of them had similar handwriting across multiple forms. So an investigation was launched. And following that investigation, it was estimated that between 8,000 and 10,000 applications were connected to the same registration efforts. In one review, the FBI looked at 20 applications that had been flagged. Seven appeared completely fabricated. Several others used real names but had information that didn't match government records. Investigators then later checked another 107 applications. Ninety-one names did not appear in the databases they searched.

16 were confirmed as real people, but only four had signatures matching the ones already on file. As part of that investigation, a former canvasser revealed that a supervisor had told workers to fill out blank forms with made-up information if they couldn't collect enough real applications. This canvasser admitted that she personally filled out false applications and estimated that she submitted around 100 of them. Another worker said that he sometimes wrote down the names of friends or family members so he would have applications to turn in. And then other witnesses said workers sometimes traded money or marijuana to get completed

forms in return. Now, at the same time, multiple canvassers denied being told to falsify anything. And multiple canvassers said there were no quotas and no bonuses tied to the number of applications they collected. So the windows's accounts conflicted. Nonetheless, the DOJ did eventually authorize a full grand jury investigation. However, after several years, prosecutors ultimately decided not to bring charges and the case was closed in September 2025. So that Michigan case was really Trump's third major point in his address. But let's take our first break here. When we come back, we do have a couple of more things to cover from the address, like the

final claim about non-citizens on voter rolls and then the push for the Save America Act. But then we'll move on to the rest of today's stories. One day, you're negotiating with suppliers. The next, you're installing a shelf in the back room. Running a business means moving in many directions all the time. TD's new small business banking accounts are built for how. your business moves. It's how we're making banking more human. Hey y'all. It's Kelly Clarkson with Wayfair.

Ever order furniture online and wonder what if? Like, what if it doesn't hold up? That sofa was four days old. You should have ordered from Wayfair. With Wayfair, there's no what if. Just style you love and quality you can trust. Visit Wayfair.com. Welcome back. Before the break, we covered Trump's claims involving foreign access to American voter data. We covered cybersecurity weaknesses in election systems. And we also talked about that voter registration investigation in Michigan. Trump's final big claim was about non-citizens on voter rolls. He said that a DHS review found roughly 278,000 possible non-citizens registered to vote. So that number came from two different reviews. First, DHS said that a preliminary review of public voter files and other records indicated there may be as many as roughly 250,000, potentially

non-citizens registered in California, New Jersey, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. However, those four states haven't submitted their full voter rolls to the federal save verification system, and DHS hasn't publicly explained its matching methodology, so we don't exactly know how that number was reached. Separately, DHS said 25 states that did use save processed more than 68 million voter registration records and identified more than 28,000 potential non-citizen matches. So the administration appears to have combined those two figures to reach about 278,000. Keep in mind, though, neither Trump nor the DHS said that 278,000 non-citizens actually voted. The claim is that they might be registered to vote. So because of that, Trump has directed the DHS to notify these states that might have non-citizens

on their voter rolls and ask them to remove anyone who's eligible. Now, Trump ended the address by asking Congress to pass the Save America Act. So that's what this whole address was about. Like I said in the beginning, all of this was to convince lawmakers to pass the Save America Act. And I don't really want to get into the nitty-gritty of what the Save America Act says because I've discussed it many times in past episodes. But it would basically, in a nutshell, require people registering for federal elections to

provide proof of U.S. citizenship. it would require photo ID for in-person voting. It would add ID requirements for absentee ballots. And it would direct states to create programs for finding and removing non-citizens from their voter rolls. So that's really the Save America Act in a nutshell. The overall takeaway from Trump's address is that the documents do identify legitimate election security concerns. Foreign governments have collected data about Americans, China specifically, they may use that to try to influence public opinion. Election technology has vulnerabilities.

Yes, fraudulent registration applications do sometimes get submitted. There was obviously that investigation out of Michigan. At the same time, the documents don't establish that China changed votes, that voting machines altered the outcome of the 2020 election, that the fraudulent Michigan applications, you know, produced fraudulent ballots, or that 278,000 non-citizens actually voted. The administration argues instead that these documents show that officials downplayed serious threats and that stricter national election laws are needed to address these various concerns. So from here, intelligence and law enforcement agencies will review the alleged suppression of intelligence and the Michigan investigation. DHS will continue working with states on voter

role reviews and Congress will continue debating the Save America Act. Now, I did see a creator, a quite popular creator talk about the administration threatening jail time for states who didn't comply with the voter role review. I did not have time to review that. I did not have time to look into that. So if that is something that you guys would want to hear about, let me know. And I will either try to include it in the next episode or post a video about it. I'll see what makes the most sense. But just let me know if that's something you would be interested in hearing more about. Now, a related storyline here is about the mainstream news networks that chose to air the address, the ones that didn't, the ones that showed some of it. And we're not going to touch on that

now, but we will be visiting it in the critical thinking segment. So I just want to give you the heads up for that. And for those of you that participated in Friday's critical thinking question of the day on Instagram and Facebook. Don't worry, it'll be different questions with some added context. So it won't be the same thing all over again, but it will be about the same topic. Okay, moving on. Next story. Three U.S. service members are dead and one is missing in action after a weekend of fighting in the Middle East. On Friday, Iranian ballistic missiles and drones targeting U.S. Allied forces left two dead and one missing, though Central Command did say yesterday that unidentified remains were found where that U.S. service member went missing.

Then on Saturday, a third American service member died in Iraq after a, quote, controlled detonation, end quote, of an Iranian drone. So the last time we talked about this, which was on Thursday, the United States and Iran were continuing to trade strikes over the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. had been striking targets inside Iran. Well, Iran, you know, had been striking U.S. bases in allied countries, countries like Kuwait, Jordan, and Bahrain. And that's been going on for the last week or so. Well, on Friday, Iran struck an airbase in Jordan that also hosts American forces and aircraft. U.S. Central Command or Sentcom confirmed that two American service members were killed while U.S. and Jordanian forces were defending against that attack. And one service member remains

missing in action. Those killed on Friday have been identified as Lieutenant Tyler Feehan, age 25, and Private Isabella Gonzalez, aged 19. Gonzalez died Friday. Feehan died Saturday. Separately on Saturday, a U.S. service member was killed in Iraq. Sentcom wrote yesterday, quote, A U.S. service member in northern Iraq was killed in action July 18th during a controlled

detonation of unexploded ordinance from a downed Iranian one-way attack drone. A second service member was wounded and continues to receive medical treatment for a minor injury. Centcom is withholding additional information, including the identities of the missing and fallen warriors out of respect for the families during the notification process. And quote, aside from Friday's deaths, Iran's Revolutionary Guard claimed the attack also destroyed two American fighter jets and three other U.S. aircraft at the base. The United States has not confirmed those claims. Those claims also have not been independently verified. Meanwhile, the United States launched two more rounds of strikes on Saturday and Sunday night, which marked the 8th and 9th consecutive nights of strikes.

So the latest deaths bring the total number of U.S. service members killed since the war with Iran began in late February to 17, and Friday's deaths marked the first American casualties resulting from Iranian strikes since March. In other news, Secretary of St. Marco Rubio announced a new visa restriction policy targeting certain foreign nationals connected to groups the Trump administration identifies as far-left terrorist groups or other groups aligned with them. Now, quite a few of you requested that I cover this story, so I want to talk about what this policy actually does, but I also want to talk about what we don't really know. First and foremost, the State Department has not defined exactly what qualifies as a far-left

terrorist group. The Department also has not defined what makes another group aligned with a far-left terrorist group. The department has not said whether there's going to be a more formal process for deciding which organizations fall into those categories. So at this point, we know the types of conduct, the policy is intended to target, which we'll talk about in a second, but we don't really know how the administration is going to define the groups covered by this policy. Now, at its most basic level, the policy allows the State Department to restrict someone's ability to receive a visa or enter the United States if that person is a member of one of these groups. And the government determines that they supported or encouraged terrorism,

supported violent criminal activity, participated in what the department calls economic sabotage, helped finance or recruit people for violent or criminal activity, provided logistical support, or helped different networks connect and coordinate for the purpose of committing violence. And logistical support, by the way, it tends to involve like the practical help needed to carry something out, so providing money, providing transportation, supplies, communications, et cetera. Rubio has said that international counterterrorism efforts have spent decades concentrating on threats from Islamic militant organizations while largely overlooking violence connected to far-left movements. He described this as a blind spot,

and he said governments need to share intelligence and work together to identify international networks, funding sources, and organizers. Now, there are a few important things to clarify here. Number one, this is an immigration policy. It is not a new criminal law. So it doesn't make far left political beliefs illegal and it doesn't by itself allow the government to prosecute or imprison someone for having far left political beliefs. Second, this policy applies to foreign nationals. So people who are not U.S. citizens and are trying to receive permission to enter the country. The direct consequence here is that a foreign national could be denied a visa or denied entry into the United States. And on this point, so there's a viral social media post going around right now that says this policy allows the State Department to prevent anyone they decide is a far left terrorist from entering or leaving the country.

That is false. Number one, this is an entry and visa policy. This is not an exit ban. So it doesn't prohibit people from leaving. And two, it doesn't cover everyone. It specifically applies to non-citizens. So I do just want to be clear about that. Always be careful what you hear on social media because not all of it is true.

But the third thing worth clarifying here is that the policy is targeting foreign nationals whom the government believes are members of or have supported finance, recruited for, incited or otherwise enabled violent or criminal activity by far left terrorist or aligned groups. So the policy isn't written to apply merely because someone has far-left political views, right? Under the policy, the government would have to determine that the person falls into one of the listed categories involving terrorism, violence, criminal activity, or support for groups that the administration considers aligned with those activities. Now, because this is an administrative immigration decision and not a criminal prosecution, the government is not operating under the criminal standard of proving something. beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the policy relies on an existing section of immigration law, known as Section 212A3C. This is a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and that section

says that a foreign national is inadmissible if the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe that the person's entry or proposed activities in the U.S. could have potentially serious consequences for U.S. foreign policy. So it's not beyond. a reasonable doubt here. It is reasonable grounds to believe, which is a lower standard. Now, the specific section the administration is using in immigration law is notable because, while it gives the Secretary of State discretion to deny entry based on potential foreign policy consequences, it also includes an important protection for lawful political expression. For most foreign nationals, the government generally cannot deny entry under this provision

solely because of the person's past, current, or expected political beliefs, statements, or associations, as long as those beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful in the United States. However, the Secretary of State does have the ability to override that protection if he personally determines that allowing that person into the country would compromise what the law calls a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest. So in other words, simply having a left-wing political belief isn't supposed to be enough under the law. Okay. The administration says the policy is aimed at people enabling violence or criminal activity,

not people peacefully expressing political opinions. However, the State Department's announcement does leave a lot of questions unanswered. It doesn't define exactly what qualifies as a far-left group. It doesn't define what makes another organization in a lined group. It doesn't explain how much support someone would have to provide. what evidence would be needed. Who within the government would decide which groups qualify or whether there's going to be some sort of formal process for challenging that determination. Now, some of those questions might indirectly be answered if we look to the broader effort that this policy is part of.

The State Department says this policy supports National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, which President Trump signed in September 2025. That memo ordered federal agencies to develop a coordinated strategy for investigating and disrupting organized political violence. And it specifically focuses on violence it associates with self-described anti-fascist movements and lists anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, anti-Christianity, support for the overthrow of the U.S. government, extremism involving migration, race, and gender, and hostility toward those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality. So that raises the question.

Because the State Department says this new policy supports the broader effort outlined in that memo, could the department deny visas simply because someone holds one of those views? Simply because someone is anti-Christian or anti-American or doesn't agree with traditional American values. And I wish I had a really clear answer for you, but I don't because that's just the way that these things work. I will say on paper, the answer is generally no. Okay. So the section of immigration law that Rubio is using here generally doesn't allow the government to deny entry solely because of someone's lawful political belief statements or associations. If those political beliefs statements or associations are lawful here in the United States, that generally can't be grounds to deny a visa. At the same time, foreign nationals don't have an absolute right to enter the United States. And the law does give the Secretary of State significant discretion. He can override that protection if he personally determines, that admitting a person would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest. So legally speaking, ideology alone isn't supposed to be enough. But because the administration hasn't clearly defined some of the categories it's using,

critics argue there's room for concern about how broadly this policy could be applied. So that's the gist of what's going on there. Obviously, still a lot we don't know, still a lot that we have to get answers to. But hopefully that answers what we do know. Let's take our second and final break here. When we come back, we'll talk about a new federal rule regarding habitat destruction. And then we'll finish with quick hitters and critical thinking. When you're a mid-sized business, you need every competitive advantage you can get.

Like an AI solution that works for you, not against you. SAP Grow is built with AI embedded at its core, working across every system. And it's ready to go from day one so you can hit the ground running. Bring it with SAP Grow. AI Cloud ERP for any size business. Welcome back. This next story was another popular listener request. The Trump administration has finalized a rule removing habitat destruction from the federal

government's longstanding definition of what it means to harm an endangered species. So what does that actually mean? Basically, this comes down to whether someone can violate the Endangered Species Act by destroying an animal's habitat in a way that eventually kills or injures the animals. even if the activity itself wasn't directed at the animal. So the Endangered Species Act makes it illegal to take an endangered animal. And take means a lot more than just physically capturing an animal. Congress defined take to include things like harassing, harming, hunting, shooting,

wounding, killing, trapping, or collecting a protected species. But Congress never separately explained what it meant by the way. word harm. The word harm was never was never defined. So for roughly 50 years, federal regulations essentially filled that gap. They said harm could include significantly changing or destroying in animal's habitat when that habitat destruction actually killed or injured the animal by interfering with something essential, like its ability to eat or its ability to find shelter. So let's say someone cuts down a forest, right? Under the previous rule, that could potentially count as illegally taking an endangered species

if the government could show that the habitat destruction actually killed or injured members of that species. Well, the new rule gets rid of that definition of harm. The Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, which are the two agencies that jointly administer the Endangered Species Act, are basically saying, instead of relying on the definition that was created by federal agencies, we are going to look at the words Congress actually put in the law and we're going to interpret it that way. And the administration's argument is that when you read harm, the word harm next to words like hunt, shoot, wound, kill, capture, trap,

those words all seem to describe actions directed at the animal itself. So in the administration's view, harm should also generally mean direct harm to an animal, not indirect harm caused by changing the place where an animal lives. And this is why you're seeing headlines saying habitat destruction will no longer count as harm to an endangered species. Under this new rule, habitat destruction generally won't be treated as an illegal take under this part of the Endangered Species Act simply because it later causes a protected animal to be killed or injured. Under the administration's interpretation, the conduct generally has to be directed more immediately at the animal itself. And the administration says that this brings the law back in line with what Congress originally intended.

Interior Secretary Doug Bergam argued that the previous definition stretched the Endangered Species Act beyond its actual wording and turned a law meant to protect animals into a much broader restriction on how private land could be used. The administration also says this change will give more certainty to farmers, ranchers, developers, energy companies, fishing operations, local governments and other landowners who might have endangered species living on or near their property. Their argument is that under the old rule, people could potentially face federal penalties for otherwise the legal activity because of indirect effects on wildlife that might be difficult to predict. Environmental groups strongly disagree. Their argument is how do you really separate

protecting an animal from protecting the place where that animal eats, breeds, sleeps, raises its young, all of those things. You can make it illegal to directly shoot an endangered animal, but if someone is allowed to destroy the only habitat that animal needs to survive, the ultimate result could be the same. And habitat loss is a big part of this conversation, right? One study looking at species listed between 1975 and 2017 found that habitat loss or degradation was the primary threat to 81% of them. Direct killing, including hunting and poaching, was the primary threat to 17%. So environmental groups say this new rule removes one of the law's most important protections because it focuses mainly on direct physical actions against animals instead of the

destruction of the ecosystems keeping those animals alive. But by the way, this argument isn't new, right? The Supreme Court dealt with almost this exact question back in 1995. It was in a case called Babbitt. Basically, these logging companies and landowners argued that harm should only cover direct actions against animals because the other words in the law, like hunt, shoot, and capture all describe direct conduct. But the Supreme Court ruled six to three that the government was legally allowed to define harm more broadly to include habitat modification that actually kills or injures protected animals. And in doing this, the majority pointed to something called an incidental take permit. An incidental take happens when someone unintentionally kills or injures a protected

animal while doing something else that is otherwise legal, like building a project, logging, operating a dam, things like that. That project might still be allowed to continue, but the company or landowner generally has to get a permit and follow a conservation plan that's designed to reduce the harm. So the Supreme Court said the existence of that permit system suggested Congress understood that the law could apply to indirect harm, not just the intentional hunting or killing. Now, Justice Scalia, he was one of the dissenting justices in this 1995 case. He argued that harm should be understood in the context of the other words around it and should

apply only to direct actions against wildlife. And that narrower interpretation is essentially the one that Trump administration is now adopting. The administration says the Supreme Court in 1995 in Babbitt did not hold that the broader definition was the only legally acceptable interpretation. It just ruled that the government was allowed to. to use it at the time. And the administration is also pointing to the Supreme Court's 2024 decision ending Chevron deference, which means that courts are now supposed to independently determine the best reading of an unclear law rather than automatically deferring to an agency's interpretation

as was required under Chevron. Now, environmental groups have already sued. They are arguing that the Trump administration is misreading both the Endangered Species Act and the Supreme Court's Babbitt decision. they're also challenging the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, which essentially requires the federal government to give a reasonable explanation when they create or change a regulation. The administration, though, says that it's adequately explained the change and it's just simply correcting a regulation that we went beyond the authority that Congress gave the agencies in the first place. Now, one important clarification, this rule does not eliminate every habitat protection in the Endangered Species Act. There's a different section of the law known as Section 7 that still requires federal agencies to make sure that the actions they authorize or fund or carry out don't jeopardize an endangered species or destroy or adversely modify its officially designated critical habitat. But Section 7 generally comes into play only when the federal government is involved. The definition of harm that the administration is eliminating was used under Section 9.

Section 9 applies much more broadly, including to private individuals and companies. So the federal government will still be able to protect critical habitat when there's some kind of federal involvement, but it'll have less authority under Section 9 to stop habitat destruction on private property solely because that destruction ultimately kills or injures an endangered animal. So the rule was published last week. It is scheduled to take effect on September 14th, but environmental groups are asking a court to block it. So a judge could put the new rule on hold while this lawsuit moves forward. But unless that happens, the narrower definition will take effect in September. And then the courts will have to decide whether the administration is legally allowed to redefine harm, you know, in this way that it's looking to. Now let's do some quick hitters.

Spain won the World Cup this weekend, marking the second title in the team's history. And in a related storyline, this year's tournament was also the most lucrative sports. event in history. That's partly because it was the first World Cup with 48 teams up from 32 in the previous tournament. More teams meant more games, which obviously created more broadcast inventory and more tickets for fans, more commercial opportunities for advertisers. So FIFA is expected to bring in more than $9 billion in revenue for 2026. And FIFA's president has already floated the idea of expanding the tournament again to 64 teams in 2030. A person was taken into custody this morning after authorities say an incendiary device was deployed outside

26 federal plaza, which is a federal building in lower Manhattan that houses the New York office of the FBI and an immigration court. Officials said the fire appeared to be started by fireworks, which were loaded into a wagon with a sign that read ice out of our streets. Officials have not released the suspect's name or a confirmed motive. President Trump said today the Katari gifted plane will be sent out for upgrades. In speaking with reporters at Joint Base Andrews, he said in part, quote, it has a lot of capability, but as I understand it, in about a month or so, they're going to send it to have it be maxed out, end quote. He did not specify what would be maxed out, but he said the upgrades would take about a month.

The FDA says Taylor Farms Lettuce Sample, the Taylor Farms Lettis sample tied to the cyclospora outbreak was initially reported as positive, but after further review, the agency now says that result was a false positive. That means there are currently no confirmed positive product test for cyclospora, though FDA traceback still points to the Taylor Farm supplier in Mexico as a potential source. Vice President Vance and second lady Usha Vance welcomed their fourth child on Sunday, a son named Alec Neal Vance, and the birth makes Vance the first sitting vice president in more than 150 years to welcome a child while in office. influencer Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan were arrested Saturday in Miami after British authorities announced 38 new charges against them and said they're seeking their extradition.

The alleged crimes date from 2010 to 2017 and include rape, sex trafficking, and offenses related to child sexual abuse images. British authorities say the latest allegations involve four victims and are separate from the 21 charges filed against the brothers last year involving three other unnamed victims. The lawyer for the brothers said they're being held in solitary confinement at a federal detention facility while they await their court appearance in Miami. The Trump administration is reviving a public charge rule that would allow immigration officers to consider certain immigrants' use of public benefits, including Medicaid, food stamps, and housing assistance when deciding whether they qualify for green cards. Federal law already lets the government deny certain immigration applications if officials determine the person is likely to both. become primarily dependent on government support. This rule would give officers a broader discretion in making that decision. USCIS says the policy is meant to promote self-reliance and protect public resources, while immigration rights and public health advocates say it could discourage eligible

families from using benefits they pay for. For today's critical thinking segment, we're going to go back to the different editorial decisions news outlets made about whether and how much of Trump's election security address to air. So Fox News, the Fox Broadcast Network and News Nation aired the full address live. MS now aired roughly the first 15 minutes. CBS joined the address after it started and later cut away. And CNN, ABC, and NBC did not air any of it live on their primary channels, but did make it available through digital or streaming coverage. Now, I asked my followers on social media what they would have done if they were running a news organization. It's part of my critical thinking question of the day, a little game that I like to play. I've told you guys about it before. If you're not

following me on Instagram or Facebook, go ahead and do that. It's really fun. I get a ton of responses. I basically post a critical thinking question of the day and then post responses at the end of the day. And everyone loves to see the different perspectives and how other people respond. But anyway, I digress. So Friday's critical thinking question was what would you have done if you were running a news organization, you know, when it, and this Trump address was on, like, would you have run it or would you have not? Roughly 90% of people who responded said they would have erred the entire address and then let the viewers decide what to think about it.

Some people said they would have aired it, but accompanied it with a fact check. And then about 10% of people said they wouldn't have aired it at all. Obviously, there are arguments on both sides of this. Some people feel that the public should be able to hear directly from the president, especially when the speech involves an issue like election security. Others feel that news organizations have a responsibility, you know, not to give uninterrupted airtime to claims that they feel are false or misleading or unsupported. But before you decide what you think, I want to add some historical context because this actually is not the first time

networks have decided not to carry or have cut away from a president's remarks. So in 2014, networks like NBC, ABC, CBS, and Fox didn't air President Obama's prime time address regarding his executive actions on immigration. Reporting at the time, said network, executives viewed it more as a policy speech than an urgent national address and didn't want to interrupt the popular primetime programming. There is one important distinction here, though. The Obama White House did not make a formal request for airtime from those major English language broadcast networks. It did formally ask Univision, and Univision did carry the speech. CNN and Fox News also aired that speech on cable. Then in November 2020, President Trump spoke from

White House while votes were still being counted in the presidential election, ABC, CBS, NBC and MSNBC initially carried his remarks, but they cut away before he finished. And those networks said they were interrupting because Trump was making claims about election fraud that they considered to be false or unsupported and instead shifted to fact checking what he was saying. CNN and Fox News carried that address in full. Then in September 2022, ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox News chose not to air President Biden's battle for the soul of the nation's speech from Independence Hall. CNN and MSNBC were the two major cable news networks that carried that speech live. Reporting at the time said the broadcast executives that chose not to air it felt that Biden's remarks were more

political than newsworthy and didn't justify interrupting primetime programming similar to that 2014 Obama speech. That was a speech that criticized Trump and MAGA Republicans. It was delivered about two months before the midterm elections. CBS News and PBS News Hour did still make Biden's speech available online, similar to the way some networks made Trump's address available digitally, even though they didn't carry it on their main channels. Now, those examples aren't necessarily apples to apples, of course. The circumstances were different each time. But they do raise a bigger question about what standard news organization should use and whether that standard should remain the same regardless of which party controls the White House. So,

My question for you is, is it reasonable to make different decisions based on the speech as subject or timing or news value, factual reliability? Or should a news organization apply the same rule to every president when deciding whether to err in address? Where would you draw that line? And then after hearing how networks handled speeches by Obama, Trump, and Biden, did that historical context change your opinion about the most. recent decision. Why or why not? That's what I have for you. Thank you so much for being here. As always, if you loved what you heard in today's show, please go ahead and leave me a five-star review wherever you listen to the show, mainly Apple Podcasts and Spotify, also on Facebook. They do reviews on there too. I'm still figuring out my schedule for next week. I am leaving

town. I'm going to plan to do at least one episode next week. I just haven't decided if it's going to be Monday's episode or Thursday's episode, regardless, both episodes or if I just decide to do one, will be audio only. So there won't be video next week. But I will keep you updated when Thursday's episode comes around this week. I will give you the final determination as to what next week will look like. Have a great next couple of days. And I will talk to you again on Thursday.