UNBIASED - July 23, 2026: Trump’s Saudi Nuclear Deal, $99M in Flagged Federal Payments & 6,600 Noncitizens Registered to Vote, and More.

Episode Date: July 23, 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: Suspect Lights Fire at NY Federal Building. Here's What We Know. (1:46) Trump Announces 50% Tariffs on Canadian Products Over Discrimination (5:06) Clearing Up the Cyclospora Confusion (10:26) Hegseth Testifies as Administration Seeks $87B in Additional Funding (~17:55) Treasury Dept. Says It Flagged $99M in Payments That Need to Be Reviewed (~25:38) NJ Governor Says 6,600 Noncitizens Were Improperly Registered to Vote (~29:26) Trump Announces Nuclear Deal with Saudi Arabia (~35:58) Mamdani Makes Video About Legal Authority to Arrest PM Netanyahu (~39:55) Quick Hitters (~42:42) Rumor Has It (~45:05) ⁠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

Recently, our company's softball team lost the big game by one run. Then Dale tried to console us with the quote, winning isn't everything. Well, Dale and I are very different. I get early payout from Bed 365. If my team goes up big, I get paid out instantly, even if they blow the lead later. Sound familiar, Dale?

Thanks, Beth 365. Must be 19 or older Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or the gambling of someone close to you, please go to connectsuntario.c.com. T&C supply. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. It's Thursday, July 23rd, and we have a lot to cover. We are talking about Monday's attack outside the federal building in New York, the new tariffs on Canadian

products, Hegg Seth's testimony, New Jersey voter rolls, the Treasury Department, stopping possible payments to dead people, the House passing the Stop Insider Trading Act, and Act and the National Defense Authorization Act, and much, much more. A few things before we dive into today's stories. First, I am recording this episode very late at night the night before. It is currently 11.20 p.m. I'm barely seeing straight at this point. Okay. But by the time you're listening to this, some things may have changed overnight. Don't know if they will, but I just want to give that heads up just in case. I always like to give that heads up when I pre-record. Second, there will be no episode on Thursday next week. I am traveling. I just don't think I'm going to be able to make it

back home in time to get that episode out. So there will be no episode on Thursday. You can count on an episode on Monday, but no episode Thursday. And then third, if you haven't already, I know I've been giving you this little note ahead of every episode lately. But if you haven't already, I would love it if you could go ahead and follow the podcast wherever you're listening. It's really easy. there's a little button depending on which platform you listen on that says either follow or subscribe. And when you click it, it not only tells your phone to notify you as soon as my new episodes go live, but it also helps me keep this show free for everybody. So thank you very much.

And now, without further ado, let's get into today's episode. We are going to start this episode with the incident outside the federal building in New York City on Monday morning. According to authorities, a 43-year-old man named Andrew Ara Baca showed up outside. 26 federal plaza in lower Manhattan with a cart full of weapons and other materials. He first lit a bundle of fireworks near the employee entrance to the building and then fired somewhere between five and seven pellets from an airsoft gun. He then allegedly poured a bucket of flammable liquid onto the stairs near the entrance and lit it on fire. But before the fire could spread to the building, a security officer was able to tackle him and restrained him while the fire was put out.

and until the police could arrive. There's actually witness video of the last part of all of this. So in the video, you can see him run back to his cart, grab an orange bucket and pull a lighter out of his pocket. He then runs back toward the entrance and lights the liquid on fire. Once the flames erupt, he runs back to the cart, picks up some kind of rectangular object, throws that into the fire. Then he goes back to the cart one more time, and that's when the security officer tackles him. Now, the building in question, 26 federal plaza, It's this big federal government complex in lower Manhattan. It houses a number of different agencies, but it's probably best known for its connection to immigration enforcement because it houses New York City's largest immigration court as well as an ICE office. It also houses FBI and

Homeland Security offices. Like I said, it's just a government complex, but it is best known for its immigration enforcement operations, if you will. But the New York City Police Commissioners, said after this incident that 911 calls started coming in around 8.30 in the morning, and police got there about two minutes later. By that point, the suspect had already been restrained by the security guard. Three people suffered minor injuries. Two of them were security officers, including the officer who tackled the suspect. The third person was a civilian who was grazed by the fireworks. And that was an individual who he's an immigrant who was at the building for an immigration hearing. When authorities,

searched the cart. They saw that the suspect brought quite a lot with him. They said the cart contained two axes, a hammer, a machete, three knives, two air rifles, a manifesto, and what appeared to be gasoline. Attached to his cart was a poster that read ice off our streets. As for Arabaka personally, we know he's an army veteran. He served from 2001 to 2005. He worked as a mechanic on Patriot missile systems. And according to the DOJ press release, during a recorded post-arrest interview, he said that he was motivated to act by anti-government beliefs, including a belief that government authorities were unlawfully harming people and that he had targeted that specific building entrance because he previously observed that it was a busy one. He has since been charged with destruction

of property owned or leased by the United States by means of fire or explosives and caused. causing personal injury or substantial risk of injury. That carries a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years and a maximum sentence of 40 years. Next story, President Trump announced a new round of tariffs on Canada. And these are a little bit different from the other tariffs we've talked about because the administration is actually relying on a trade law that's apparently never been used in this way before. So on Monday, Trump announced a 50% tariff on more than 400 Canadian products. This includes certain paper and wood products as well as cement, dairy, honey, sports equipment,

alcoholic beverages. The tariffs won't apply to everything coming from Canada, though. Certain things like energy, fish, and critical minerals will be excluded along with products that are already covered by Section 232 tariffs. Now, Section 232 is a separate part of federal trade law that allows the president to restrict imports based on national security concerns specifically. And those tariffs already cover certain Canadian products like steel, aluminum, copper, and pharmaceuticals. So how much trade are we talking about here with these new tariffs? Well, the U.S. Trade Representative says the new tariffs will affect nearly $20 billion in Canadian imports. To put that number into perspective, the United States imported about $382 billion worth of goods from Canada in 2025. So this would cover roughly 5% of everything Canada sells to the United States.

One of the most notable parts of this announcement, though, is that the tariffs will apply even to products that normally qualify for duty-free treatment under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement or USMCA. That is the trade deal that replaced NAFTA. The USMCA generally allows qualifying goods made in North America to move between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. without tariffs. But under this new policy, even products that follow the USMCA's rules could still face the 50% tariff. And this is happening as the future of that agreement has become a bit less

certain earlier this month. The United States actually declined to extend the USMCA for another 16-year term. Now, that doesn't mean the agreement immediately goes away, but it'll now be reviewed annually for the next 10 years while these three countries continue negotiating with one another. However, it could eventually expire if they can't reach an agreement. Now, the legal authority Trump is using here for these new tariffs is section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. Basically, that law allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 50% if another country discriminates against American goods by treating products from other countries more favorably. And the White House says Canada has discriminated against American cars, alcohol, and dairy products. So let's start with cars. In April 2025, Canada imposed a 25%

retaliatory tariff on certain American-made vehicles in response to earlier U.S. tariffs on Canada's auto industry. According to the White House, Canadian imports of American vehicles fell by about 22% over the following year, a decline of roughly $5.6 billion, while vehicles from other countries filled some of that demand. Okay. So then there's alcohol. Beginning in March 2025, nearly every Canadian province either banned or heavily restricted American beer, wine, and spirits in response to U.S. tariffs. Ontario and Quebec, for example, stopped buying American alcohol altogether and actually removed it from the government-run stores there. The White House argues that this was discriminatory because Canada did not impose similar restrictions on alcohol from

other countries. It says Canadian imports of American alcoholic beverages fell by about 81%, or roughly $582 million over the following year. Then finally, there's dairy. Canada allows a limited amount of foreign dairy to enter the country at relatively low tariff rates. Once imports go above that limit, the tariffs become much higher. And the administration says Canada has structured that system in a way that makes it easier to import certain European dairy products at lower tariff rates than comparable American products. And that that gives European exporters an advantage over American exporters. So that's the administration's argument for using this specific section of the law, section 338. The White House is basically saying Canada is not just protecting its own industries.

it's treating certain American products less favorably than products from other countries, and that's discrimination. Canada, meanwhile, has described at least some of these restrictions as retaliation for tariffs the United States imposed first. So both countries are essentially pointing to the other side's trade restrictions to justify their own. But these new tariffs are scheduled to take effect on August 19th, which does leave some room for negotiations, so we'll see what happens.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said earlier, this week that he had spoken to Trump and that they were they had agreed to to talk more on trade. So for now, the 50% tariffs are scheduled to begin next month. Whether they take effect exactly as announced might just depend on what happens in the meantime, what happens in those negotiations. All right, moving on. We are going to untangle all of this confusion surrounding the cyclospora outbreak because the FDA's messaging has kind of been all over the place.

the easiest way to understand this is that investigators, FDA investigators, were relying on two different types of evidence. Okay. The first was a lab test of the lettuce itself. That's the test. The FDA initially said came back positive and then later said it was a false positive. The second was epidemiological and trace back evidence, which basically means investigators looked at what the affected people ate and then traced the suspected people. food back through the supply chain. And the FDA says that evidence still points to Taylor Farms. So we're going to rewind, go back to the beginning. We, not the beginning, beginning, but, you know, a few steps behind. So we know that federal officials have been investigating several

groups of cyclospora illnesses across the country, right? But the outbreak involving Taylor Farms is specifically connected to people who reported eating at Taco Bell locations in Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia. As of the latest count, more than 1,600 cases had been linked to that five-state outbreak. Ninety-four people had been hospitalized, but fortunately, no deaths. In Michigan specifically, which is where most of the cases have been reported, health officials interviewed 190 people who got sick after eating at Taco Bell, and about 90% of them said they had eaten iceberg lettuce. Investigators then traced that lettuce supplied to the Taco Bell, locations where those people ate, and according to the FDA, those supply chains all led back

to Taylor Farms de Mexico, which processes lettuce grown in central Mexico. So that's the first piece of this. Now, even before a lettuce sample tested positive, the FDA said the pattern of illnesses and the supply chain records were pointing to Taylor Farms. And with cyclospora specifically, that kind of evidence can be pretty substantial because the parasite, can be difficult to find in food samples. So based on that evidence, Taylor Farms announced a recall on July 17th involving iceberg lettuce specifically sourced from Central Mexico. Taco Bell also stopped using lettuce supplied by Taylor Farms to Mexico. But then things start to get confusing because on Saturday, July 18th, the FDA announces that a sample of Taylor Farms lettuce had

tested positive for cyclospora. And at that point, everyone kind of thought like, okay, great, we got to the bottom of this. It's now confirmed where this is coming from. But the very next day, the FDA said the test result was actually a false positive. So basically, the lab test looks for genetic material from the parasite. And after reviewing that data again, FDA lab experts said the signal they initially saw wasn't actually evidence of cyclospora. So the FDA withdrew the test result. And that means that as of now, there's no lettuce sample. that's been confirmed through lab testing to contain cyclospora. But the FDA did not withdraw the other evidence, the interviews with sick people and the supply

chain records. That evidence still points to shredded iceberg lettuce from Taylor Farms, New Mexico. And that's why the recall is still in effect. But after the FDA announced the false positive test, Taylor Farms released a statement saying that the FDA had apologized to them. And then FDA officials responded saying, no, we didn't. So that's where it got really confusing. But it appears the FDA acknowledged that the lab result was wrong and told Taylor Farms that.

But then Taylor Farms and the FDA are kind of recounting that conversation a little bit differently. So just for clarity sake, this is where everything stands. There's currently no confirmed positive food sample through lab testing. But the FDA and CDC still say the other evidence, the interviews and supply chain, points to iceberg lettuce from Taylor Farms, New Mexico. Taylor Farms disputes that conclusion, but for consumers, the guidance has not changed, and the recall is still in effect. Let's take our first break here.

When we come back, we'll talk about Hegg Seth's testimony. We'll talk about the Treasury stopping payments to dead people, New Jersey voter rolls, and more. Frozen lasagna, medium power. 15 minutes. Sounds like, Ojo time. let's play. Feel the fun with Play-O-Joe, the online casino with all the latest slot and live casino games. What you win is yours to keep with no wagering requirements, instant payouts, and no minimum withdraws. Hey, I just won. Woo-hoo.

Feel the fun. Play-O-Joe. Honey, forget about the lasagna. Let's celebrate. 19 plus Ontario only. Please play responsibly. Concern about your gambling or that if someone close to you, call 16-531-2600 or visitconnectsont.com. Welcome back. On Tuesday, defense secretary Hegset appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee to make the case for nearly $88 billion in additional government spending, most of which would go to the Pentagon. And during this hearing, there were really two separate debates. So the first was whether the military needs more money right now to cover the war with Iran and replace weapons that have already been used and continue military operations around the world. The second was whether the administration has clearly explained where this war is going and how much it will ultimately

cost and why all of the Pentagon funding in this package needs to be approved so urgently outside of the normal annual budget process. So we'll start with the money part of this first. The administration is asking Congress to approve what's known as a supplemental funding bill. That's basically extra money that's not included in the government's regular annual budget. Supplemental bills are usually used when something unexpected happens like a war or a natural disaster and when the agency says that the money Congress already approved is no longer sufficient. So the administration's full request is for about $87.6 billion, with roughly $67.1 billion of that going to the Pentagon. The rest would include $11.1 billion in assistance for farmers, about

$3.4 billion for diplomatic security, evacuations, and Ebola-related health and humanitarian efforts, roughly $2 billion for Coast Guard operations, $1 billion each for Penn Station and certain Delphi retiree pensions, and then smaller amounts for energy security, federal buildings, and other programs. And just to be clear, this hearing was, it didn't approve any of the money that the administration requested, right? Congress would still have to pass a bill before the Pentagon could receive any money. The point of the hearing was so that Hegseth could explain why the money was being requested. But one of the biggest headlines from the hearing was Hegset's updated estimate of how much the war with Iran is costing. He said the Pentagon estimates that certain

aspects of the war will cost about $37.5 billion through the end of the current fiscal year, which is September 30th. And that figure includes costs the military has already incurred, along with expenses it expects to incur between now and September 30th. As for the new funding request, the supplemental request, Hegset says that about $21 billion of the roughly $67 billion that would go to the Pentagon would go toward immediate military operations like troop pay, training, fuel, replacing damaged equipment, supporting National Guard missions, things like that. And then another roughly $46 billion would go towards weapons, military technology, and expanding the factories and supply chains that produce high demand munitions.

Hegset said that without this extra money, the Pentagon might have to reduce or cancel training exercises, delay replacing weapons and equipment, might move money away from maintenance and future investments to cover more immediate expenses. Now, some lawmakers are on board with the additional funding, others are not. Susan Collins, the Republican who chairs the committee, said certain military accounts could run low on money soon. So despite the Pentagon's massive overall budget, Congress still needs to provide more money now to cover immediate costs and avoid cuts to things like training and readiness. But several of the Democrats basically said, well, before we give the Pentagon another $67 billion, can you explain why the money it already has is not enough? And for context, Congress already approved about $839 billion in regular Pentagon funding for this fiscal year, which is, the largest amount ever approved in a single year before adjusting past budgets for inflation. And on top of that, Patty Marie, the top Democrat on the committee, argued that the Pentagon still has

about $75 billion left from the $150 billion Congress approved through last year's reconciliation law. So her argument was similar to the other Democrats in that the Pentagon should explain why it can't use more of that money first. She also pointed out that not everything is, this request seems to be directly connected to the war with Iran. Some of it would go toward National Guard operations in D.C., military activity at the southern border operations in the Caribbean, and weapons that are also included in the Pentagon's budget request for next year. So, Murray took issue with the fact that the administration is putting immediate Iran-related costs and, you know, a bunch of other Pentagon priorities into the same supplemental package and asking

Congress to approve all of it together as urgently as possible. But Heggseth pushed back on that. he said the military was already dealing with weapon shortages, delayed maintenance, and other long-term problems before the war started. He also said recruiting has been stronger than expected, which means the Pentagon now has more service members to pay and support. So basically, his argument is that the Iran War didn't create every problem in this request, but it made those problems that did exist harder to put off. And then a lot of the hearing also focused on where the war with Iran is actually going. Several Democratic senators brought up earlier comments from Trump and Heggseth suggesting that Iran's military had been severely weakened. And their question was basically, if Iran has been weakened

that much, why is the administration now asking for tens of billions of more dollars while the fighting is still going on? And Hegeseth responded that badly weakening Iran's military doesn't mean Iran has lost every weapon or is no longer capable of fighting. So the gist is that some law lawmakers say, you know, the military has immediate bills that Congress can ignore, even if they disagree with the war itself, even if they think that there's more money that exists. Others say the administration has not provided a clear enough long-term strategy that, you know, the Pentagon has billions in previously approved funding left to spend, and that some items in the request are not directly tied to the Iran War and therefore should not be included in this request. So from here,

Congress will have to decide not only how much additional money to approve, but whether the cost of the war should be separated from the Pentagon's other spending requests. Now, you might have also seen that the House passed the annual defense authorization bill yesterday. That's a separate process from what we're talking about here. The National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, mostly sets military policy and authorizes programs and spending levels for the next fiscal year. It doesn't actually provide this additional money that Hegseth was asking for this hearing. the administration supplemental request would still have to be approved through an appropriations

bill, which is the legislation that actually gives the government permission to spend the money. So the House passing the NDAA didn't approve this supplemental funding request. And I'm actually, I'm going to hold off on reporting on the NDAA until it makes some headway in the Senate and gets closer to potentially becoming law. I know there's one provision specifically that has to do with Israel that's making some headlines. I did cover that provision in the rumor has it. segment of my June 4th episode. So if you do want to hear about that, go tune into the June 4th episode, but otherwise, we will cover the NDAA once it's closer to becoming law. Because, you know,

just because certain provisions pass in the House doesn't necessarily mean they'll pass in the Senate. So I would just rather wait until we have a more, until we have a better idea of what the law is actually going to look like. Okay, next story. The Treasury Department says it's expanded a verification process designed to catch federal payments associated with people listed as deceased before the money is sent. And in using this new process, the department says it screened more than 885 million federal payments, totaling about $2.77 trillion, and flagged more than 4,900 payments worth about $99 million that the department says were connected to people listed as deceased. Now, just to be clear, this does not mean the Treasury has confirmed that the government was about to lose $99 million

to fraud. Okay. The payments were returned to the federal agencies that originally requested them so those agencies could review the cases before any money was sent out. So at this point, basically, basically what we're seeing is the Treasury has identified potential problems, but it hasn't necessarily proven that all 4,900 payments were improper or fraudulent. So, let's talk about this new process first. Before the Treasury sends certain payments on behalf of a federal agency, it can compare the payee's information against government databases. Now, that includes the Social Security Administration's full death master file, which contains death information collected by the government. If the person receiving the payment appears in that database as deceased, the payment can

be stopped and sent back to the agency for another look instead of being automatically released, right? And this could apply across a wide range of federal payments, government benefits, grants, loans, payments to contractors, et cetera. So back in 2021, Congress passed a law that gave the Treasury temporary access to the Social Security Administration's Fuller Death Record database. The Treasury then used that access to test a program that screened payments for people listed as deceased. Then in March of last year, President Trump signed this executive order directing the Treasury and other federal agencies to expand and standardize those checks across the government before payments were sent. So the law gave the Treasury access to the records and the executive

order directed the Treasury to use that information more broadly as part of its payment verification process. And then earlier this year, Congress passed another law called the ending improper payments to deceased people act, which made the Treasury's access to the Social Security Administration's death record database permanent. And by the way, payments being issued in the names of people who have died of that has actually been a longstanding problem for the federal government, which is why this law was passed back in 2021. And there's also been efforts dating back even further than that. But payments can continue after someone dies for various reasons. It could be because a government agency hasn't yet received or processed the death information that's held by

another agency. It could be because of outdated records. It could be due to administrative mistakes, or it could be fraud, someone who continues collecting money intended for the dead person. But the goal of this new system is to catch those potential problems before the money leaves the Treasury rather than trying to recoup it afterward, right? Again, though, the $99 million represents payments that were flagged for review. So what we'll see from here is the individual agencies will review those 4,900 payments and determine whether the money should be withheld or sent out. So that's what's going on there. Next, let's talk about some news out of New Jersey. New Jersey officials say roughly 6,600 non-citizens were improperly registered to vote,

and according to the state's preliminary review, fewer than 400 of those individuals later cast ballots. So here's what we know. When someone applies for a driver's license or a state ID through New Jersey's Motor Vehicle Commission, the system asks whether that person is a U.S. citizen and whether they want to register to vote. Non-citizens can legally get a New Jersey driver's license or a state ID, but they can't register or vote in state or federal elections. However, between June 23 and June 24, roughly 6,600 people who answered no to the citizenship question were still added to the voter rolls. Now, New Jersey's governor says this happened because of a software error in the motor vehicle commission system, but the company that operated this system disputes that

explanation. The company, Idemia, says the people involved in the 6600 people answered no to the citizenship question, but answered yes when asked whether they wanted to register to vote. And the company says its system accurately sent both of those answers to the state and that it was the election officials who were responsible for determining whether the applicants were eligible. New Jersey officials disagree. They say that once someone answered no to the citizenship question, that person's information should have never been sent through the voter registration process in the first place. So at this point, the state and the vendor are essentially blaming different parts of the process. There is an investigation that's underway to determine exactly where the system broke down.

What we do know is the state's initial review found that some number less than 400 of those 6,600 people later voted after being registered. However, we don't yet have the exact number of ballots cast or which elections they voted in. And because ballots are secret, you know, the fact that someone was registered as a Democrat, Republican or unaffiliated voter doesn't automatically tell us which candidate that person voted for. The state says the registrations were spread across the state and included Democrats, Republicans, and unaffiliated voters. Now, all of this happened during former Governor Phil Murphy's administration. The new governor took office earlier this year and says she only learned about this issue last week.

She has since ordered the registrations created by this error to be removed. She has launched an investigation and she's begun the process of replacing the company that operated the system. New Jersey Republican Party chair Christine Handlin is also calling for a bipartisan investigation into both how this happened and why the public wasn't told about it sooner. And as you can imagine, this has now become part. of the much larger national debate over election security and non-citizen voting. The Trump administration says the New Jersey case supports its argument that states need stronger citizenship checks before someone's added to the voter rolls, whereas New Jersey's governor says this was a specific failure in its system and it wasn't anything more than that

and has accused the Trump administration of using this issue for political gain. Okay, let's take our second and final break here. when we come back, we'll finish this episode with this new nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia. Mom Donny's comments on Netanyahu. We'll do quick hitters and rumor has it. Welcome back. President Trump formally approved a nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia that would help Saudi Arabia build a civilian nuclear energy program and could eventually allow the country

to enrich uranium within its own borders. So let's break this down. This agreement would last for 30 years and it's intended to give America. companies a pretty big role in building Saudi Arabia's nuclear infrastructure. Under the deal, U.S. companies would provide the nuclear reactors and other technology needed to generate electricity. But while those products are being developed, the United States and Saudi Arabia would also conduct a two-year study looking at whether it makes financial sense for Saudi Arabia to enrich its own uranium rather than importing nuclear fuel

from somewhere else. Now, enrichment is important because uranium generally has to be processed before it can be used as fuel inside a nuclear reactor. If the study finds that enrichment inside Saudi Arabia would be commercially viable that it would make financial sense, American companies could build an enrichment facility there under what's being called a black box arrangement. basically the facility would operate inside Saudi Arabia, but Saudi officials would not have access to the sensitive technology used in the enrichment process. If the United States ultimately decides not to move forward with enrichment after the study, Saudi Arabia would agree not to develop enrichment on its own or work with another foreign country to do it for 10 years. So why do both

countries want this deal? Well, Saudi Arabia wants to diversify where its electricity comes from. Right now it relies heavily on oil and natural gas and nuclear power would give it another source of energy. The United States wants American companies to win the contracts, to build that nuclear infrastructure instead of leaving the work to competitors from other countries. And the administration also argues that keeping the United States closely involved in this would give it more influence over how Saudi Arabia's nuclear program develops and allow it to build safeguards into the process. Now, the big concern here is that civilian nuclear power and nuclear weapons use some of the same technology. A nuclear power plant itself is built to generate electricity, not make bombs,

but uranium enrichment can be used for both. Uranium can either be enriched to a low level for nuclear fuel or it can be enriched to a much higher level for nuclear weapons. However, the Trump administration's argument, again, is that if American companies are the ones building and helping oversee the program, the United States would have more control over the process and could make sure that, you know, the technology is being used for civilian purposes only. Critics, though, say the concern is more than just uranium enrichment, since the deal could also eventually allow Saudi Arabia to reprocess used nuclear fuel. They're also pointing out that Saudi Arabia wouldn't be required to agree to the strongest level of international inspections.

So their argument is basically that the deal doesn't include every possible safeguard. So that's really where the debate is. The debate is over, you know, whether U.S. involvement makes the program safer or whether allowing Saudi Arabia to develop these capabilities creates too much risk in the first place. But now that the agreement has been announced, Congress will have 90 days to review it. The deal does not need affirmative approving. from Congress to move forward. However, Congress could block it. If Congress is against it, they could block it with what's called a joint resolution. If that were to happen, President Trump could then veto that resolution and Congress would have to have enough votes to override that veto in order to

prevent the deal from moving forward. If they don't have the votes to override a veto, the deal would just proceed. Okay, finally, let's talk about this video for Mayor Mom Donnie that's been getting a lot of attention. During Mom Doni's campaign, he promised that if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to New York City, he would have him arrested based on an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court. But on Tuesday, Mom Donnie acknowledged in this new video that he doesn't actually have the legal authority to do that. So in the video, Mom Doni said his administration looked into the issue and determined that New York City cannot override the federal government or independently enforce the international criminal court's warrant against Netanyahu.

So instead, Momdani is asking the federal government to join the ICC and enforce the warrant itself. Now, Trump has already said Netanyahu will not be arrested if he comes to the United States, but I do want to back up and just kind of explain how this works because I think this is where a lot of your questions lie. The International Criminal Court or ICC issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu in 2024, over alleged war crimes in Gaza. But the United States isn't a member of the ICC and doesn't recognize the court's authority over the United States. There are 125 countries that are members of the court, and those countries are generally

expected to cooperate with the court's arrest warrants. However, because the United States never joined, the United States doesn't have the same obligation. And joining the ICC is something that both Democratic and Republican presidents have opposed, really since the ICC was created in 2002. But the reason this is being talked about right now is because Netanyahu is expected to be in New York in September for the UN General Assembly. But him simply being in New York wouldn't give Momdani or New York City the authority to

arrest him based on the ICC warrant. And this really comes back to how power is divided in the United States. Foreign policy is primarily handled by the federal government, not in terms. individual states or cities. New York City can't independently enforce a warrant from an international court that the federal government doesn't recognize. And the Constitution also limits states' abilities to act independently in matters involving foreign relations. But on top of that, Netanyahu is a sitting head of government. And sitting heads of government generally get immunity from arrest while serving office. So long story short, Mamdani originally promised to have

Netanyahu arrested if he came to New York City. That was one of the things he promised during his campaign, but in this new video, he's acknowledging that the city doesn't have its own legal pathway to enforce the ICC warrant. He can call on the federal government to do something about it, but he can't independently order the NYPD to carry it out. Let's do a few quick hitters. The Pentagon identified the third and fourth soldier who died over the weekend in the Middle East, 28-year-old active duty Army Sergeant Angel S. Brassad of New York, who was originally listed as missing in action, has been identified as the third soldier killed in the attack on the Jordanian airbase. The fourth soldier who died in northern

Iraq has been identified as 30-year-old Sergeant Michael Emmanuel Swinton of North Carolina. The dignified transfer of all four service members was held in Delaware yesterday. The wreckage of Pan Am's Clipper Endeavor, a Douglas DC-4 that crashed off Puerto Rico in 1952, has been found 74 years later, 2,000 feet underwater. The plane went down shortly after takeoff from San Juan after losing power in two engines, killing 52 of the 69 people on board. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission voted two to one to move forward with a proposed rule that would end annual workforce demographic reporting requirements that have been in place

since the 60s. The reports currently require covered employers and other organizations, to submit aggregate employee data broken down by race, ethnicity, sex, and job category. The EEOC says this requirement is costly, not required by Title VII, and raises legal concerns. Critics, though, including former Democratic EEOC commissioners and civil rights groups, say this data helps the agency identify possible workplace discrimination patterns. This proposal is not final yet, and it does still have to go through public comment. And the White House narrowly passed a bill that would restrict lawmakers, their spouses, and dependent

children from buying new stocks in publicly traded companies while serving in Congress. The bill still allows lawmakers to keep stocks they already own, maintain certain investment funds, and sell stock with 7 to 14 days advance notice. So critics say it falls short of a full stock trading ban. A separate voter ID measure was also added to the bill before the vote, which would require photo ID at the polls to vote in federal elections. However, this bill does still have to go to the Senate. The future is not very clear in the Senate. So once we have a better look at that, I'll do a deeper dive into this legislation. Now it's time for rumor has it, my weekly segment where I

address rumors submitted by you and either confirm them, dispel them, or add context. Today we are doing two. First one, rumor has it that New York will be using robots as teachers in schools. Let's add context. First, New York is not replacing teachers with robots across the state. There is one public school district in western New York, the Salamanca City Central School District that's launching this pilot program that involves one humanoid robot named Sally. So the school district says that starting this school year, Sally will be used with a small group of high school students that are taking coding, robotics, and AI classes and will act as a teaching assistant and classroom tool,

but not as the student's actual teacher. Human teachers will still lead the classes and be responsible for instruction, though Sally can assist in certain situations. Now, Sally will have silicone skin, long brown hair, facial expressions, and arms and hands that do move, but the school district says that Sally will stay seated and cannot walk around. So what will she actually do? Well, the district says Sally has been loaded with its approved curriculum and can help students review concepts, work through questions, receive individualized support, and that the system is designed to guide students toward an answer rather than simply doing their assignments for them. Rather than freely searching the internet, the district says Sally will operate using locally stored information. And if a student asks

something outside of that material, Sally is programmed to say that it doesn't know. The district also says Sally won't record video or audio, collect personally identifiable information, or send data back to the company that made her. But students can use identification code so the system can remember where they left off and so that Sally can provide more personalized help. The goal, according to the superintendent, is to teach students how to work responsibly with AI because they're likely going to encounter it in college and in the workplace. So for now, this is a limited pilot involving certain high school technology classes. though the district might consider expanding it to other high schools if the pilot is successful. Second and final, rumor has it that the CEO of Taylor Farms donated $1 million to a Trump super PAC. Okay, so federal campaign finance record show that Taylor Fresh Foods, the company, donated $1 million to MAGA Inc.

In March of 2025. Maga Inc. is a super PAC that supports President Trump. Taylor Farm CEO, Bruce Taylor, has separately donated money to Republican candidates and political groups, but it wasn't him personally who donated the $1 million to a Trump super PAC. It seems like some people online combine those two facts and just kind of started saying that he personally made the $1 million donation, but that's not what the record showed. The company made the $1 million contribution. The CEO has made separate personal political donations.

Okay, now I'm just going to be honest with you. the day that I've had, the fact that I am recording this episode at 11 o'clock, actually now it's midnight, and I still have to edit it and schedule it for release. I haven't even tried to give critical thinking a thought. So we are going to skip it today. The good news is that I post critical thinking questions of the day to my stories on Instagram and Facebook. So if you are craving a challenge, just go ahead and follow me there. If you're not following me already, you'll get your fix. My page on Instagram is unbiased Jordan. My page on Facebook is unbiased politics. I would hope that you guys follow me already. But just in case you don't, unbiased Jordan on

Instagram, unbiased politics on Facebook. I post a critical thinking question of the day. And then I post the responses at the end of the day. If I can, if not, it's usually the following morning. But yeah, that's what I have for you. Thank you so much for being here. If you loved what you heard today, please leave me a five-star review wherever you listen. I hope you have a fantastic weekend. and I will talk to you on Monday.