UNBIASED - June 1, 2026: Anti-Weaponization Fund Blocked, Oregon's Animal Abuse Ballot Measure, Protests at Delaney Hall, Trump's Latest Medical Report, and More.

Episode Date: June 1, 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 Anti-Weaponization Fund Blocked (0:12) Trump's Case Against IRS Reopened. Judge Will Check for Fraud (5:29) Judge Says Trump's Name Can't Be On Kennedy Center (8:24) White House Releases Trump's Latest Medical Report. Here's What It Says (13:55) Protests at Delaney Hall Detention Facility (17:44) Fact-Checking Viral Social Media Claims (~25:45) Quick Hitters (~37:39) Critical Thinking Segment (~40:26) ⁠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

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. Wayfair, every style, every home. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Monday, June 1st. Let's talk about some news. We are going to start this episode with some legal news. first we'll talk about a federal judge blocking Trump's anti-weaponization fund. Then we'll talk about a related development, a different federal judge reopening Trump's lawsuit against the IRS.

And then we'll briefly discuss the ruling that orders Trump's name to be removed from the Kennedy Center. So as we know, President Trump announced the creation of this $1.776 billion anti-weaponization fund as part of his settlement with the IRS and DOJ over his last. leaked tax records. Shortly after that, multiple lawsuits were filed challenging the legality of the fund. And one of those lawsuits was brought in Virginia by a group of plaintiffs that includes former assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Floyd, Professor Jonathan Caravello, the City of New Haven, the National Abortion Federation, and Common Cause. Now, as for why these particular plaintiffs

filed suit, their argument is basically that this fund is not, a neutral nonpartisan fund for anyone who was unfairly targeted by the government. They argue that this is a politically selective fund that benefits people who claim they were targeted by Democratic officials or Democratic administrations. And at the same time, excludes people who claim they were targeted by Republican officials or the Trump administration. So, for example, plaintiff Andrew Floyd is a former assistant U.S. attorney who worked on January 6th, prosecutions and says that he was fired because of that work. Plaintiff Jonathan Caravello is a professor who was prosecuted after protesting an immigration raid. He was later acquitted, but he was prosecuted.

The city of New Haven says it's been targeted by the Trump administration over its sanctuary city policies. The National Abortion Federation says the fund could possibly reward people who have been prosecuted under the FACE Act, which is that federal law that protects access. to abortion clinics. And so they say this could increase, increase risks to abortion providers. So they each claim they've been targeted by the Trump administration in some way, yet won't be entitled to the fund in the same way that others will. And they argue that, one, this fund violates the First Amendment because it discriminates based on viewpoint. Two, that similarly situated people are being treated differently based on whether they were allegedly targeted by Democrats or

Republicans. Three, the fund violates separation of powers principles because Congress controls federal spending, not the executive branch. Four, the use of the judgment fund to fund the anti-weaponization fund is unlawful. Five, that the creation of the fund goes beyond the legal authority of the officials who created it, namely the Treasury Secretary and Acting Attorney General. And then finally, six, they argue that the administration acted arbitrarily and capricially and capriciously and also failed to follow the required procedures that are required by federal law. So for all of these reasons, they argue that this anti-weaponization fund should be struck down. Now, when they filed this lawsuit, they also requested what's called a temporary restraining order or TRO.

And what a TRO would do is prevent the fund from taking effect. Now, at the same time, they also requested an expedited hearing on that TRO. They wanted the TRO to be, to be, they wanted the judge to hear this sooner so that the judge would make a decision sooner. But what the judge said here was that in expedited hearing alone wouldn't be enough for him to make a proper decision here. So he instead set a full briefing schedule. And in the meantime, he said to make sure that no funds are irreversibly destructed. you know, while I consider the plaintiff's request for a TRO, the defendants, the administration, is blocked from taking any further action related to the fund, no transferring of money to the fund,

no dispersing money out of the fund, and no considering claims submitted to the fund. So from here, what will happen is the administration has until June 5th to file their opposition to the plaintiff's request for a TRO, essentially arguing why the TRO shouldn't be granted. And the plaintiffs then have until June 10th to reply to that opposition. And then there will be a hearing on June 12th to determine whether the plaintiff's request for a TRO is granted or denied. If the TRO is ultimately granted, the administration will remain blocked from taking any action on the fund while this case continues. If the TRO is denied, the administration would no longer be blocked for moving forward with the fund unless another court order goes into effect either from the same judge or another judge overseeing a separate lawsuit because like I said,

there have been multiple lawsuits filed against this anti-weaponization fund. We are just talking about this one lawsuit in particular. It was the first lawsuit to have a judge step in and say, you know, we're blocking the fund for now. Now separate from the lawsuit challenging the anti-weaponization fund itself, there's also a development in the original lawsuit that led to the creation of the fund. the lawsuit in which Trump and his sons and his and the Trump organization sued the IRS and DOJ over the leaked tax records. A federal judge has now reopened that original case. Now, that doesn't mean that the settlement and the fund and everything that came with the settlement is automatically void. It just means the judge is now going to review whether that settlement and dismissal

were proper. So what happened here, late last week, a group of 35 former. federal judges filed a motion with the court asking the court to take another look at this case. There is a federal rule. It's called Rule 60 that allows a court in certain circumstances to grant relief from a final judgment or a final order or a dismissal. And in extraordinary cases, non-parties can ask the court to do that, especially when they're alleging fraud on the court, which is what the former judges argue happened here. So even though the former judges who filed this motion were never a party to this lawsuit, they are allowed to file this motion under Rule 60, alleging there was fraud on the court. Their argument is essentially that this wasn't a normal settlement between

truly opposing parties because, one, Trump himself controls the DOJ IRS and Treasury Department. two, the settlement didn't simply resolve Trump's own claim about his leaked tax records and instead created this payment program for third parties who weren't even a part of the original lawsuit. Three, the fund might improperly bypass Congress's control over federal spending. Four, the court wasn't notified of the settlement when the case was voluntarily dismissed. And five, the settlement might have gone too far by barring future audits of Trump. Trump, his family, his businesses, et cetera. So in response to those allegations, the judge said, okay, let's reopen this case. We'll take a closer look to see if the case was properly dismissed

or whether the settlement involved fraud on the court, collusion, or some other misuse of the judicial process. Now, if the underlying settlement is ultimately found to be improper, then that could obviously affect the legal foundation for the anti-weaponization fund itself, as well as that corresponding addendum we talked about that appears to limit or restrict certain future IRS audits of Trump, his sons, his associates, his businesses, etc. But for right now, what this ruling means is that this case is now reopened so the judge can take a closer look. Okay.

And then the last court ruling we have to talk about is the one related to the Kennedy, Kennedy Center. So for context, the Kennedy Center is this big performing arts center in D.C. It is named after President Kennedy. Congress actually intentionally created it as this living memorial for him. So instead of it just being a statue or a monument, it is a performing art center that hosts events, concerts, theater, ballet, opera, musicals, etc. Now, the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees is the governing body that oversees. the center. Under federal law, the board's duty is to maintain and administer the center. So it oversees things like leadership, finances, programming, fundraising, maintenance, repairs, renovations,

things like that. The trustees on this board are appointed by the president and they generally serve six-year terms. That board then elects its own officers, including the chair. So back in February, Trump appointed several new trustees to the board, including himself. And the board then named him chairman. Shortly after that, the board moved to add Trump's name to the center. And at the same time, they also approved a plan to close the center for about two years for renovations. These decisions led to a lawsuit from Congresswoman Joyce Beattie, who is one of the center's board members. And she basically argued that this was outside the scope of the board's authority. So on the renaming issue, she argued that the board didn't have the legal authority to rename the

center because Congress specifically created the center as a national memorial to President Kennedy and therefore only Congress has the power to change the name. So she's saying the board can administer the center, but it can't rewrite the statute that names it. On the closure and renovation issue, she claimed that Trump and Kennedy Center leadership similarly lacked the proper authority to do this. She argued that closing the center isn't just an ordinary operational decision that the board has the authority to carry out because Congress specifically created it to be a living memorial. So on the name change issue, the judge agreed with Congresswoman BD. The judge's reasoning was pretty simple.

He said that because Congress had named the institution. the John F. Kennedy Center for the performing arts. The board does not have the authority to change that name on its own. That is something only Congress can change. So according to the judge, the board can manage and administer the center, but it cannot override Congress's decision about what the institution is formally called. And this goes back to the concept of separation of powers that we talked about during Unbiased University. Congress writes the law. The president executes the law, right? The president cannot unilaterally rewrite, ignore, or override a statute just because he doesn't like it or he wants to change something. That is, that is Congress's job. So if Congress passes a law that

says this institution is called the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and, you know, its purpose is X. The president or a board appointed by the president can't come in and say, well, wait, actually, we want to change the name. To change the name, Congress would need to go back and amend that statute. But going back to the lawsuit and the ruling, on the closure issue, the judge's reasoning was a little more nuanced. He didn't say that the Kennedy Center board can never vote to close for renovations. He also didn't say that the building doesn't need repairs. In fact, he acknowledged that major repairs might be necessary here. But what he said is that the board has a duty to operate the Kennedy Center as a performing arts.

venue and as a living memorial to President Kennedy. So the board can't solely focus on repairs while ignoring the center's bigger mission of operating as a living memorial. The problem, according to the judge, was the process that the board followed. He found that the board's decision to close the Kennedy Center for two years was ill-informed and possibly predetermined. And to support that finding, he cited the fact that some of the trustees allegedly learned about the closure around the same time the public did through President Trump's social media posts. And consequently, the board didn't seem to evaluate the impact of a two-year shutdown in any meaningful way. So ultimately, the court blocked that specific closure plan, you know, that the

center had voted on. But the court did leave open the possibility that the board could approve repairs or even revisit closure through a more legally proper process. Now, following this decision, Trump wrote a lengthy post on true social, which in short said that he was handing this issue off to Congress. The post reads, in part, quote, based on the fact that the radical left Democrats care more about opposing your favorite president than saving a dying performing arts center, we are going to be working with Congress to transfer this failing institution back to them so they can make a determination as to what to do with it. I have instructed the Department of Commerce to make all necessary arrangements with Congress to follow a full and complete transfer of this institution. giving them their responsibility for its operation, maintenance, and management. End quote. All right.

Moving on from the legal news. Three days after Trump's visit to Walter Reed, the White House did go ahead and release Trump's annual physical exam results. This was Trump's third medical visit in the last 13 months. He went in April 2025 for his annual physical. Then in October 2025 for what the White House doctor described as a schedule. dualed follow-up evaluation or semi-annual physical. And then this most recent time was for a, quote, routine medical and dental exam. And quote, during that October visit is when he had that

advanced imaging and lab testing done. He also received a flu shot and a COVID booster. But the April 2025 visit and this visit that just happened were annual physicals. It's also worth noting that the October visit followed his diagnosis of chronic venous insufficiency, which is basically when the veins in your legs don't work as well as they should to move blood back up to your heart, and it can lead to swelling. That's why we've seen the swelling in his ankles. So Friday's report says that pretty much everything was normal. Trump's eyes were normal. His ears were normal, except for scarring consistent with prior gunshot injury. His hearing was intact. His teeth are in, quote, very good condition, end quote. His thyroid and lymph nodes were normal. In ultrasound of the

carotid arteries showed normal results. His lungs. were clear, chest was normal, abdominal exam was normal, genitoneurinary exam was normal, cardiac function was normal, circulation to the extremities was intact, and his neurological assessment was normal. He did show slight lower leg swelling. That's the swelling we just talked about, though the report says there's been an improvement since his physical last year. His hands also showed bruising. That's another thing people have called attention to in the last few months, as we just mentioned, though the doctor's summary says the bruising is consistent with, quote, minor soft tissue irritation related to frequent handshaking in the setting of aspirin use for

cardiovascular prevention. And quote, the note says that this is a, quote, common and benign effect of aspirin therapy. End quote. His BMI this time was 29.7 up from 28.0.8.8.000. zero at his last annual physical in April of last year, and he weighed 238 pounds this visit, which is a increase in 14 pounds since that last annual physical. His blood work was reported as normal, including his lipid panel, blood count, cardiac biomarkers, glucose, hemoglobin, TSA, PSA, etc. The report also notes that he's currently on three medications, two for cholesterol control, and aspirin for cardiac prevention. And as far as preventative care goes, the summary says that he is

up to date on all of his screenings and immunizations, and that, quote, preventative care was provided, including guidance on diet, recommendation to take a low dose aspirin, increased physical activity, and continued weight loss. And quote, in summary, the report says, quote, President Trump remains in excellent health, demonstrating strong cardiac pulmonary, neurological, and overall physical function. His demanding daily schedule, including multiple high-level meetings, public engagements, and regular physical activity continues to support his overall well-being. Cognitive and physical performance are excellent. He is fully fit to carry out the duties of the commander-in-chief and head of state. And quote, and we will revisit this topic in the

critical thinking segment. I was thinking about some things today, and I figured, you know what, the questions that I'm asking myself, I'm going to ask you guys. So we'll visit you. at that at the end of this episode. Now let's talk about what's going on at Delaney Hall. Delaney Hall is a 1,000 bed immigration detention facility in Newark, New Jersey. It's operated by a private prison company called GEO Group under a contract with ICE. And over the last week and a half or so, there have been protests outside the facility, clashes with federal officers, a lot of allegations about what's happening inside. But there are really two separate issues here. So one issue is whether the facility should even be operating the way it is. Newark officials have argued that this facility should not be

open unless it complies with local permit inspection and certificate of occupancy requirements, whereas GEO group and federal officials disagree. They say that the facility is operating legally under federal authority. So that's one fight here. Does Newark get to enforce, you know, local building and safety rules against a facility that's being used by the federal government. And that's a controversy that's been happening since this facility reopened. The bigger controversy, I would argue, and what's really led to these protests, has to do with the conditions inside the facility. According to advocates and lawmakers, detainees have complained about spoiled food, inadequate

medical care, poor air circulation, overcrowding, hygiene problems, and delays in their immigration cases. And in response to those alleged conditions, hundreds of detainees have reportedly started a hunger and labor strike inside the facility. Several Democratic lawmakers have also gone to the facility as part of congressional oversight. Once this really started to kind of, you know, make waves in the public and in the news, these Democratic lawmakers went ahead and went to this facility to kind of check it out for themselves. One of those lawmakers was House Minority Leader, after he visited the facility, he released a statement that reads in part, quote, The conditions of confinement we witnessed firsthand and discussed with approximately two dozen

detainees at the Delaney Hall detention center shock the conscience. At Delaney Hall, we learned of unsanitary living conditions, lack of adequate medical care, and unhealthy food. We will continue to aggressively conduct congressional oversight visits to make sure that everyone is being treated with dignity and humanity. end quote. Now, Jeffries didn't give a ton of specific examples in that statement, but other Democratic lawmakers who visited before him did. So Representative Jerry Nadler, for example, said that detainees complained to him about small portions of food and alleged that the food often contained maggots. He also said detainees said that they were only being given Tylenol for medical issues and that

one woman had a lump in her breast but was still waiting for a mammogram more than a month into her detention. Ice, DHS, and Geo Group dispute these allegations. Federal officials say detainees are not being mistreated and that they're receiving proper meals, water, medical care, and required services. But those allegations are what have fueled these protests outside the facility. The protests started around May 22nd, like I said, about a week and a half ago. And they've just continued since. They're still happening now. Law enforcement officials say that protesters are blocking access to the facility, refusing orders to disperse, damaging barriers, setting fires, assaulting officers.

But of course, protesters tell a different story. They say law enforcement is responsible for escalating the situation because they're using pepper spray and tear gas and stun guns and riot gear and making arrests. So then, keep in mind, this is all happening over the last week and half. On Memorial Day, one week ago, tensions. got even worse because Senator Andy Kim was outside the facility with the protesters and he was pepper sprayed. Kim says that he was trying to de-escalate the situation that was happening and he was pepper-sprayed. Officials have not disputed that he was trying to de-escalate. They say, though,

that pepper spray was used to control unsafe or unlawful behavior in the crowd. So that was one moment where, you know, tensions kind of escalated even further. At one point, family visitation at the facility was temporarily suspended. This only added to the anger from the protesters and detainee advocates. But then on Sunday, yesterday, visitation was actually restored. Also yesterday, Newark's mayor imposed a curfew around the facility that's in place until further notice. That curfew runs from 9 p.m. until 6 a.m. and at least 20 people were arrested last night once that curfew went into effect. So that's the latest there. This is still an ongoing situation. But that is what the protests are over, those allegations of poor conditions inside the facility.

Let's take a break here. When we come back, we will fact check another viral video and then we'll finish with quick hitters and critical thinking. Now that I'm in the thick of postpartum, I have been back on my Nutraful game because in the past, whenever I've dealt with hair shedding, which usually happens once a year for me, you know, just like outside of postpartum, neuterful has been a game changer when it comes to seeing better hair growth and less shedding. And the thing is there's a lot of skepticism in the hair growth industry. I was one of those people that was like, eh, I don't know. There's just like a ton of products out there that they all say they're going to help.

And then it's hard to know what to trust. But I saw so many people using NutriFold that I was like, you know what, let's try it. And I'm so glad that I did. I love that it's just something I take with my daily vitamins every day. I don't even have to think about it. It makes it really easy. It's so much easier than applying a serum or a mask or something like that. So like I said, I take Nutrifol postpartum, but there's also just a regular women's supplement, a regular men's supplement, and then there's a few others, too.

Nutriful is the number one dermatologist recommended hair growth supplement brand, and it's the number one hair growth supplement brand personally used by dermatologists. Nutriful's hair growth supplements are peer-reviewed, NSF certified for sport and clinically tested. Let your hair become one less thing, taking up space in your head and see thicker, stronger, faster-growing hair with less shedding in just three to six months with neuterful. For a limited time, NutraFo is offering my listeners $10 off your first month's subscription and free shipping when you visit Nutraful.com and enter promo code unbiased. That's Nutraful.com spelled N-U-T-R-A-F-O-L dot com promo code unbiased. So I just paid my tax bill, okay? And when you pay your taxes, you're forced to look at your finances. And it became very clear to me that I was really just swiping my card and hoping for the best last year. So I thought to myself, what was I spending my money on? Like where did my money go? And thankfully, I have rocket money. I am so happy I downloaded Rocket Money last year. I was never someone who was on top of my finances, but Rocket Money has made it so easy. It puts my checking savings and investments into one simple dashboard. It automatically categorizes transactions across my

accounts so I can actually see where my money's going. And I can customize categories and tags to get an even better picture of how I'm spending my money. It also helps me set goals. So we're actually planning on tearing up our backyard soon and putting in cement pavers in a percola. And I've been using Rocket Money to help me save towards that because Rocket Money has automated savings. So I just set the amount. I want to put away every month. And it does it for me. I don't even have to think about it. Rocket Money is a personal finance app that helps find and cancel unwanted subscriptions, monitors your spending, and helps lower your bills so you can grow your savings. let Rocket Money help you reach your financial goals faster.

Join at RocketMoney.com slash unbiased. That's rocketmoney.com slash unbiased. Rocketmoney.com slash unbiased. Welcome back. These fact check segments have been a hit. So we'll keep it up. And I haven't decided yet if I should separate these from the rumor hazard segment because it kind of feels like the same thing, but it also feels a little bit different.

I don't know what to do with it. But since we're not addressing any rumors until Thursday's episode, I figured I would throw this one into this episode so we didn't have to wait. All right. So there's a viral video going around about a new proposed amendment in Oregon. As we usually do, I'll play the whole video, but I'll stop every so often to address each claim, only addressing the claims of fact. I don't address the commentary, just the claims of fact. So here we go. I think we all knew Oregon was crazy, but none of us knew it was this bad. Oregon has a new ballot initiative that would criminalize hunting, fishing, and agriculture farming because it all constitutes animal abuse now. It is true that this is a new ballot

initiative in Oregon and it's true that it would criminalize hunting, fishing, and agriculture as animal abuse. But I want to get a little more specific about the legal mechanism here. So Oregon currently has animal abuse laws, but those laws have exemptions that make activities like hunting, fishing, live sock slaughter, rodeos, animal research, and pest control lawful activities. This new ballot measure would remove those exemptions. Consequently, it would criminalize those activities. So just to be clear, what the ballot measure would actually do is remove the exemptions from existing law. So let me see if I understand this correctly. Oregon can legalize every drug known to man, like legal meth, and has zero restrictions on when you can kill your baby

in the womb in the most barbaric way possible. But you can't harvest an egg from the same. your chicken or fish with your son in the pond outback. Okay. All right, let's take the drug claim first. So in 2020, voters did vote to approve a ballot measure that decriminalized what was called personal use possession of drugs like heroin, cocaine, meth, and other drugs. Selling these drugs was still illegal, but possession of small amounts became a civil offense, meaning possessing those drugs would result in either a ticket or a fine up to $100, but not jail. However, in 2024, Oregon enacted a law that rolled back the 2020 measure and recriminalized personal use possession. So just to be clear, currently under state law, personal use possession is illegal for drugs like meth, heroin,

cocaine, etc. Now onto the abortion claim. Oregon is one of the least restrictive states on abortion in the sense that it doesn't have a gestational limit. Now, providers are still subject to medical licensing rules, professional standards of care, informed consent requirements, facility rules, et cetera. But organ does allow abortion throughout pregnancy. The claim that you couldn't collect eggs from your chickens isn't entirely true. So the measure does remove the exemption for what's called good animal husbandry, which basically means the normal practices involved in raising, breeding, caring for, and managing animals, especially livestock and poultry. So yes, people raising chickens would lose the broad legal protection that they currently have for good

animal husbandry practices, but that doesn't necessarily mean collecting eggs from backyard chickens would automatically be illegal. The question would more so come down to whether the way the chickens are being raised or handled violates the amended, assuming they're amended, the amended animal cruelty or neglect laws. So are they being denied adequate food, water, shelter, clean living conditions, things like that. Now, fishing is different, and this is totally true. The measure removes the current exemption for lawful fishing, which means that if this measure did pass, you could be prosecuted for fishing under the state's animal cruelty laws. The Peace Act appropriate, or Oregon Initiative petition 28, has collected 120,000 signatures in the state, and now the entire

state will vote on it in November. Those claims were all true. But is set to potentially make all of the following criminal acts under state law. First, hunting. All licensed hunting would be classified as animal abuse under Oregon state law. This is also true. Fishing. Sport and commercial fishing would both be criminalized statewide. True.

Like hunting, this measure would remove fishing as an exemption, which in effect would make fishing a crime under the state's animal abuse laws. Trapping. Legal trapping, including pest and wildlife management. Animal abuse. Illegal. right to jail. You have a family of raccoons living in your basement. That's their house now, honey. True. Assuming the act involves injuring or killing animals. Now, the right to jail claim is a little

exaggerated. Many of these amended animal abuse and neglect crimes would actually be classified as misdemeanors. So you could go to jail, but you could also just get a fine. Going to jail would be possible. It just wouldn't be guaranteed. Now, in the hypothetical scenario where you had raccoons living in the basement, let's say. The question would become, are the raccoons creating an immediate threat of harm or are they just a nuisance? If they're just a nuisance, you'd likely have to use live traps or call in the professionals for a, quote-unquote, humane removal. If they're hurting you in any way, though, you could take lethal action and call it self-defense because self-defense would still be an exception. Farming and ranching. Do we just like forget how agriculturally based

Oregon is raising animals for food, dairy, eggs, and fiber constitutes animal abuse. This one goes back to the discussion about the chicken eggs. The measure removes the exemption for good animal husbandry and livestock slaughter and deletes the definition of good animal husbandry. So yes, a lot of the standard practices as far as ranching goes would lose legal protection. And if the law were magically to go into effect tomorrow, one million plus Oregonians who hunt fish, trap or work in agriculture would be eligible for criminal prosecution tomorrow. Now, this number of more than a million Oregonians comes from the Oregon Hunters Association, which opposes the bill. It's an estimation. I'm not quite sure where they're getting their

numbers, so I can't confirm or dispel this one, but it is coming from the Oregon Hunters Association. Now, the rest of the video is commentary, so there's nothing to fact check there. But here's what I want to add, just so we're all on the same page. There have been roughly 120. 26,000 signatures submitted in support of this measure. Only 117,173 signatures are needed. So supporters have already reached that threshold and actually gone above that threshold by about 8,900 signatures. Those signatures still have to be verified. Not every submitted signature is guaranteed to count, but the deadline to submit signatures for verification is July 2nd. So assuming the supporters have 117,17,173 valid signatures by July 2nd, this measure will be on the November ballot.

It would only need a simple majority to become law. But reporting as of now is saying that it's unlikely to pass because of the organized opposition from agriculture, hunting, fishing, and livestock groups. But that's what you need to know. Okay. Before we move on to quick hitters, I do want to just add some facts to the fact check I did last week. the one about North Carolina's life after fertilization bill. After I posted that video, quite a few of you asked about IUDs specifically because in the video, the creator specifically referenced her IUD.

And I should have touched on it more than I did. So I just want to add that clarification now. The reason that she referenced her IUD is because IUDs can in some cases prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. So the question becomes what happens then? could that fall under the bill? Could women be prosecuted or killed for having an IUD because an IUD, in some cases, can prevent implantation after fertilization? And the truth is, I don't have a black and white, you know, yes or no answer for you. What I can tell you is this. IUDs are generally understood to work primarily by preventing fertilization. Basically, they make it much harder for sperm to reach or

fertilized an egg in the first place. However, in some cases, especially when we're talking about copper IUDs, they can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. So implantation requires a fertilized egg to attach to the lining of the uterus, right? Some IUDs can change the uterine environment and make the uterine lining less receptive, which could then make it harder for a fertilized egg to implant. As we talked about in last week's episode, this North Carolina bill says that life begins at the moment of fertilization. Then it says the willful destruction of that life could be treated as attempted murder or first degree murder. So if birth control prevents fertilization from happening in the first place, then under the text of the bill, the protected

life has not yet begun. But if someone argues that a specific method of birth control, like an IUD, can act after fertilization by preventing implantation, we don't. We don't. We don't know what happens in that scenario. The bill does not explicitly address that. It would appear that for this to be treated as a crime under the text of the bill, when I say this, I'm talking specifically about this IUD example, you would have to show a few things. Number one, that the IUD acted after fertilization in a particular case. Two, that preventing implantation counts as willful destruction and three, that the person using or providing the IUD had the required intent to willfully destroy. But the bill doesn't explicitly answer any of that. And that's why IUDs are

being questioned as more of a legal gray area than other forms of birth control. Now let's talk about the self-defense part of this. So the original creator claimed that if this measure were to pass, someone could murder her and claim self-defense because she has an IUD. And that claim stems from the provision of the measure that says anyone can act to defend the life of another, even by deadly force, if necessary, from willful destruction. But for the creators claim to be true that someone could kill her and claim self-defense solely because she has an IUD, several things would have to happen. First, of course, this bill would have to pass, and we mentioned that it likely won't. I'll touch on that at the end. Second, the bill would have to be interpreted to mean that IUDs can

constitute willful destruction after fertilization. Third, the person using deadly force would have to claim that they were defending life from willful destruction, right? And even then, there would be major questions about whether deadly force was actually necessary, whether there was actually a protected life after fertilization, and whether the person using force could even have reasonably known any of that. How do you know if an IUD prevented a fertilized egg from implanting? Now, it sounds crazy that we even have to walk through this hypothetical. But yes, the answer is, again, we don't know how this bill would treat IUDs. I still don't think it's accurate to say that the bill allows people to murder women with IUDs as the original creator claimed. But quite a few of you

had asked about this and I just wanted to make sure that I addressed it. As I mentioned just a second ago, I do just want to be clear just to kind of ease any concern. This measure will likely not pass. It doesn't currently have the support that it would need in the legislature, not even close, actually. And even after that, it would have to go to voters and it doesn't have a ton of popular support either. Let's do some quick hitters. President Trump signed legislation allowing U.S. Capitol police officers to seek approval to work until aged 62, raising the prior waiver limit from 60. This change doesn't automatically extend every officer's service, but instead it allows the Capitol Police Board to approve extensions for eligible. officers. Lawmakers framed the bill as a bipartisan effort to retain experienced officers amid

staffing challenges and rising threats against members of Congress. President Trump suggested canceling the planned musical performances for the America 250 celebration after several artists pulled out, including Brett Michaels, the Commodores, Martina McBride, Morris Day, and Young MC. Trump floated replacing the, Trump floated the idea of replacing the concerts with a MAGA rally instead. The concert series was reportedly scheduled to begin June 24th with events running through July 10th. We also have an update to a story from about a month ago. So remember back in May when we covered, it was the beginning of May that we did this. We covered all of the missing or dead scientists and government employees.

Well, the remains of one of those missing individuals, 53-year-old Melissa Cassius, were found over the weekend in Carson National Forest in New Mexico. According to authorities, a handgun was found next to the remains, though a cause of death has not. been determined. Casillas disappeared in June of last year after spending the day working from home. When her daughter got home that day, she said her mom's car, phone, purse, and wallet were all at the house, but that her mom was gone. Cassius was reportedly last seen walking alongside a highway. Iranian state media reported that Iran is stopping mediated talks and blocking the Strait of Hormuz, citing Israel's strikes in Lebanon. ABC also reported that U.S. Central Command said it intercepted two Iranian missiles targeting U.S. troops in Kuwait.

Anthropic has confidentially filed paperwork with the SEC for an IPO. This filing doesn't mean shares will be available immediately, but it does allow the company to start the regulatory review process while keeping financial details private for now. This move comes as Anthropic, the maker of Claude, and a major open AI competitor has reportedly reached a valuation near $965 billion after a recent funding round. And a Utah judge ruled that the public and media can attend Tyler Robinson's preliminary hearing in the Charlie Kirk assassination case despite a defense request to close parts of the proceeding over concerns about pretrial publicity. The July 6th through 10th hearing is expected to include the first major public presentation of evidence, including forensic evidence, surveillance footage, witness recordings, autopsy reports, and an alleged note in which Robinson admitted to planning the killing. for today's critical thinking segment let's talk about trump's medical report or just presidential

medical reports generally so first have you ever thought about how hippa applies to these medical reports it's something that i was thinking about today how much would a president's doctor actually reveal to the public given the fact that they're not legally allowed to disclose a patient's medical information without authorization. Second, do you think all people in positions of power should be required to undergo annual physical exams and mental acuity tests? Should that apply only to presidents or should it also apply to lawmakers, cabinet members, Supreme Court justices, really anyone, you know, that's high ranking or maybe you don't think they should be required at all. But where do you stand on that? And then finally, think about how you react to presidential health reports depending on

who's in office. So if you're someone who accepts Trump's reported quote unquote excellent health at face value, would you give the same credibility to a doctor's report for an 80 year old Democratic president? Why or why not? And if you're someone who's questioning Trump's health because of his recent ankle swelling and bruising on his hands, did you apply that same level of scrutiny to President Biden when concerns were raised about his mental acuity? Again, why or why not? That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. As always, have a fantastic next couple of days. And we will talk again on Thursday.