UNBIASED - June 22, 2026: Gabbard’s Fauci Files, the New Air Force One, Reflecting Pool Drama, the Latest on U.S.–Iran Talks, and More.

Episode Date: June 22, 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: The Latest Between the U.S. and Iran; What We Know Following Day One of Talks (0:19) What We Know About the Reflecting Pool Drama. Is It Vandalism or Something Else? (8:01) President Trump Unveils New Air Force One Plane (~18:20) Tulsi Gabbard Releases Files She Says Exposes Dr. Fauci On Her Last Day in Office. Here's What We Know (~26:28) Quick Hitters (~39:38) GOOD NEWS (~43:05) Critical Thinking Segment (~46:24) ⁠Watch⁠ this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on ⁠Instagram⁠ and ⁠TikTok⁠. All sources for this episode can be found ⁠here.⁠  Only by using my link, you can get 40% off the unlimited access Vantage plan! Go to groundnews.com/up. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor,

free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming, Ontario. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Monday, June 22nd, and we're talking about the latest between the United States and Iran, the new Air Force One plane, the reflecting pool, drama, and much more. Let's start with the latest between the United States and Iran early last week, as we talked about, the United States and Iran signed that interim memorandum of understanding.

which, among other things, temporarily paused the war, reopened the Strait of Hormuz, and gave both sides 60 days to work out the harder issues. Most notably, Iran's nuclear program and sanctions. But by Thursday, so just a few days after this memorandum was signed, things kind of started to falter. And the planned talks, there were talks that were supposed to happen in Switzerland, they were, they were kind of in doubt. So, Vice President Vance actually ended up pulling out of the Switzerland trip on Thursday.

and Iran's semi-official Tasneem News Agency reported that Iranian negotiators wanted to see signs that the United States was actually implementing the interim agreement before the next round of talks began. Around the same time, fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon was still happening. Israel continued carrying out strikes in Lebanon, though Israeli officials said those strikes were in response to Hezbollah attacks or ceasefire violate. and Israel actually said several of its soldiers had been killed in Lebanon. Meanwhile, Hezbollah accused Israel of violating the ceasefire and said that its fighters had engaged Israeli forces after Israeli forces tried to move deeper into southern Lebanon. So both sides were accusing each other violating the ceasefire, but regardless of which side violated it, the fighting in Lebanon had not fully stopped. And this complicated things because the MOU called for ending hostilities on all fronts, including in Lebanon. However, it is also worth noting that the MOU did not explicitly mention Israel or Hezbollah,

so that complicated things even more. The next day on Friday, the planned talks were basically called off because of the fighting in Lebanon, but then later that day, Israel and Hezbollah reportedly agreed to a ceasefire, and that kind of helped reopen the door for negotiations. By Saturday, a high-level Iranian delegation had arrived in Switzerland. Vance was on his way there. However, still, Lebanon's civil defense said 20 people were killed by Israeli strikes on Saturday, just hours after the new truce was supposed to take effect. So the fighting was still very much going on. In response, Israel said it had halted ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, arguing that the United States had failed to ensure the fighting in Lebanon stopped.

The U.S. actually disputed that the street was closed, saying ships were still moving through. According to shipping data, the traffic in the street did slow down significantly, though it didn't completely stop. Despite all of this, on Sunday, the talks officially opened in Switzerland, and as of this morning, Vice President Vance of the talks had, quote, laid a good foundation, end quote. Katarian-Pakistani mediators announced this, roadmap towards a more permanent agreement. So the roadmap includes technical talks continuing through this week, a direct communication line to help avoid incidents in the Strait of Hormuz, and the establishment of a what's called a deconfliction cell to end fighting in Lebanon. Now, we don't

know a ton about that deconfliction cell. We actually don't know a ton about the roadmap in general, but specifically when it comes to this deconfliction cell, we don't know a lot of at this point. We have seen similar mechanisms in the past, for instance, in 2015, the United States and Russia established a deconfliction line to keep their military forces apart, but that was between militaries that were trying to avoid unintentional run-ins with each other. This is different because it's two countries trying to prevent conflict between two other groups and those two groups are actively targeting one another. So it's not really clear how that part of the roadmap will work. We know that the Treasury Department issued Iran a 60-day waiver, which allows Iran

to sell and deliver oil sanction-free until 12.01 a.m. on August 21st. So with this waiver, Iran can sell oil to nearly every country around the world. And as we talked about in Thursday's episode, that waiver is necessary to allow sales until the sanctions are officially lifted. Vance also said that Iran agreed to allow monitors from the International Atomic Energy Agency back into the country. Now, a few things to say here. Number one, he didn't give many details as to what Iran agreed to let the IAEA do. He, Vance, did say that this was a major milestone for the American people. However, Iran has pushed back on this. So an Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson has reportedly said that Iran's interaction with the IAEA would bring.

proceed, quote, in accordance with Iran's obligations under safeguard agreements, end quote, and quote, in line with resolutions passed by parliament and the decisions of the Supreme National Security Council, end quote. Now, under a law passed by Iran's parliament last summer, cooperation with the IAEA and inspections are suspended. So if they are proceeding in compliance with, you know, Iranian law, then then they are not. going to be allowing IAEA monitoring and inspections. So we'll have to see how that plays out. Also, in Thursday's episode, I mentioned that I think it was Thursday's episode, maybe Monday, I'm losing track of my days. Whenever we talked about the MOU in depth, I mentioned that the MOU didn't seem to lay out limits on what Iran could spend its money on once its assets were unfrozen, right? The MOU allowed for the unfreezing of Iranian assets, but didn't, didn't specify limits as to what that money could be spent on. And I said it's possible that the final agreement lays out limits.

But here's an update. So Vance has said, I believe he said this today, that the plan for unfreezing Iranian assets would grant the United States approval over what Tehran can purchase using the money. He said the plan was created by Jared Kushner and it would require the money to be spent on American agricultural products. The plan, devised in coordination with Qatar, would direct the funds toward, quote, American soy, American corn, and American wheat for the benefit of the Iranian people. And quote, Vance described the arrangement as a, quote, classic Trump deal, where if Iranian

assets are ever unfrozen, they're going to go to make American farmers richer and to feed the Iranian people. end quote. So based on what Vance is saying, we know part of the money, at least part of the money, I should say, is going to American agriculture. We don't know if it's all the money, like if that's, you know, the only thing that this money can be spent on, but that is what Vance said as of today. So we'll have to see how this develops. I'm sure once a final agreement is reached, if a final agreement is reached, we will get more details. Now talks are scheduled to continue through this week, despite things still being a little bit shaky just yesterday. Trump warned of new attacks if Iran doesn't stop funding proxy forces in Lebanon and said Iran, quote, won't have a country, end quote, if it continues restricting the Strait of Hormuz. Iran's parliament speaker pushed back on those remarks, saying the straight is not Trump's quote unquote personal casino. Okay, let's switch gears a bit to the reflecting pool. A lot going on here. So earlier this year, President Trump directed a renovation of the pool.

this is the body of water that sits between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument. It's meant to reflect the Washington Monument. Trump's idea was to repair the pool, address leaking issues, and then give the bottom a dark blue coating ahead of America's 250th anniversary. That work was finished in early June and water started going back into the pool shortly after. But pretty quickly, there were some issues. So first, the water turned green because of algae, and then the new blue coating started to peel. Now, I do just want to be clear about the fact that at this point, it is not clear exactly why the coating is peeling. Okay, it could be connected to the algae cleanup, the installation,

or something else entirely. President Trump says it was vandalism, which we'll talk about, we'll talk more about those claims in just a second, actually, but I just want to be clear, we don't know exactly what's causing it, and we will elaborate on the potential causes in just a few minute. So on Friday, Trump wrote on truth social in part, quote, we've cleaned, renovated, and beautified over 45 monuments and memorials, 28 statues, and 22 fountains in Washington, D.C. However, we've had some real problems with vandalism at the beautiful reflecting pool, which sits between the Lincoln, uh, the Washington monument and the Lincoln Memorial. Just three days ago, they destroyed the grass outside of the pool. They've also done everything possible to hurt the inside surface that

was just installed. No different than the chemical. that were used on the National Mall, they used something similar in the reflecting pool to try to destroy and demean our beautiful work. And quote. And there he's referring to the 8647 marking on the grass on the national mall. It seems he thinks some chemical was used to burn 8647 into the grass and then a similar chemical was used to ruin the reflecting pool. The day after that post on Truth Social, he posted another post that said multiple people had been arrested in connection with vandalism of the reflecting pool and that the administration had met with contractors who said the reflecting pool would likely have to be drained to do the necessary repairs, but that the repairs would be

done as quickly as possible. Trump also claimed that people took, quote, some form of knife or blade and put a 250-foot-long gash into the beautiful facade, end quote. He said they also poured, quote, corrosive and destructive chemicals into the pool. End quote. A senior administration official similarly said police arrested five people for vandalism and issued federal citations to five others. The official said there were 14 police reports over vandalism, including for that alleged incident where Trump said a more than 250 foot section was cut with a blade.

Now, as of today, federal authorities have not provided any sort of evidence or explanation confirming exactly what happened. What I just told you is what we know. We don't know much more than that. We do know that at least one person has been arrested and he is a former Olympic canoeist named David Hearn. He was arrested by U.S. Park Police and charged with misdemeanor destruction of government property as well as disobeying a government employee. Hearn has said he didn't vandalize the pool and claims he only touched a piece of liner that was already peeling off the side of the pool, but that he didn't remove it from the pool. He says he has a background. material science. So he decided to check it out while he was on a bike ride after reading the reports of algae, as well as the reports of the paint or sealant peeling from the bottom. So he says he reached in. He bent the piece around a bit, but was soon told by a U.S. Park Service staff for not to reach into the water. After returning to his bike, he says he was encountered by National

Guard members and eventually arrested by Park Police. Aside from him, though, it's unclear who else has been arrested or what charges they might be facing. Now, there are two separate issues going on here. Okay, so there's algae and then there's the peeling coating. The algae issue is typical. According to a statement from the Department of the Interior, algae blooms have plagued every pool reopening since 1920. Historical records show algae has been a recurring issue in the pool for decades, possibly for as long as it's been around. In fact, after a $34 million renovation in 2012, a major algae bloom happened about a week after the pool was filled. The algae was so bad that the National Park Service had to drain it, refill it, and recalibrate its ozone level.

The reality is algae loves shallow, stagnant water. It also loves strong sunlight and, you know, areas that don't have any shade, and those are the exact conditions of the reflecting pool. The peeling coating is the part we don't have clear answers on. The fact that we don't have clear answers on. The fact of the matter is we just don't know what's causing it. So like I said in the beginning of this story, it could be related to the algae cleanup. It could be related to the actual installation. It could be something else entirely, such as vandalism as President Trump claims. One important thing to point out is that this is the first time that the pool has been quote unquote painted in this way.

Okay. So originally when it was built in the 1920s, it had an asphalt and tile bottom. Then about 60 years later in the 80s, a concrete slab was poured over the existing asphalt and tile to try to address structural problems that had been present since it was built. Then there was this major renovation we just talked about in 2010, 2011, 2012, where the old structure was replaced entirely and a specially designed tinted concrete was poured. and that was meant to improve the reflection of the Washington monument. This new blue coating is different. Some people are calling it paint, others are calling it a sealant, but either way, this is the first time the floor has been treated this specific way.

So it's possible that one of the effects of the installation is peeling, but we don't know that for sure because this has never been done before. Keep in mind, too, the reflecting pool is different from your backyard pool, right? This is essentially a shallow man-made lake. so the chemicals that are being used are different. It just functions differently. So we don't know yet how this new coating is interacting with the pool, the water treatment, the algae cleanup, or the conditions of the pool itself. Like I said, algae has been a known thing in this pool since it was built in the 1920s. And previously, there's been successful attempts to clean up the algae

whenever we've had these big algae blooms. But who knows if maybe the typical algae cleanup is interfering with this new, quote unquote, sealant at the bottom of the pool. We just don't know at this point. So could vandalism be a part of the story here? Possibly could the coating, the insulation, the algae cleanup, or the conditions of the pool itself be a part of the story, also possibly. So perhaps we'll find out more. Who knows? That's what we know as of now. Let's take our first break here. When we come back, we'll talk about the new Air Force One plane, Tulsi Gabbard's file release related to Dr. Fauci and more. I think every single one of us that tunes into this show can agree on one thing.

We all can't stand how biased the media has become, right? Depending on which outlet you tune into, you might get an entirely different narrative for the same story. For example, last month, inflation hit 4.2%. Well, a headline from the right read, inflation slowed in May, even while annual gain rose to 4.2%. A headline on the left read, U.S. inflation hits highest level, in three years. The left-leaning headline highlights the highest level in three years, while the

right-leaning headline highlights the fact that inflation has slowed despite the annual gain. And that's why ground news is so helpful, because it lets you see side-by-side how different outlets can frame the same exact story in totally different ways. Ground News pulls together news from all around the world, from different sources all across political spectrums. There are an app and website that shows you the source's political bias, how factual the sources are, and even who owns the source. And I just want to say thank you to Ground News for sponsoring the show because Ground News is helping us sift through the bias. I've been using ground news for years and I can't recommend it enough. And they're actually giving my listeners 40% off the unlimited access vantage plan only by using my link, groundnews.com,

as an unbiased politics. There are a ton of things I love and appreciate when it comes to ground news, but I especially love the blind spot feature and the bias distribution feature. The blind spot feature shows you what's not being reported by either side, and the biased distribution feature shows you how many sources from the left, right, and center are reporting on a particular story. I know all of you will love ground news as much as I do. So again, only by using my link, you can get 40% off the unlimited access vantage plan. Go to groundnews.com slash UP. That's ground news.com So I got a little crazy on Friday night and you're never going to believe what I did. I reviewed our household finances.

I know, wild Friday night. Let me tell you. But no, seriously, my husband and I told him we have to sit down. We have to really analyze what we're spending our money on because it's funny how on a day-to-day basis you don't really feel like you spend a ton of money. But then it comes time to pay the credit card bill and you're like, whoa, what did we do? Did we take a, you know, a vacation to a five-star resort? Like, what did we do? And then you actually look through it and it makes sense. Oh, yeah, we had to buy new blinds for two rooms in our house. We bought tickets to that Broadway show. We had to replace our pool filter. We had to buy a new pool vacuum. Life is crazy, guys. These things add up. But managing your finances gets a lot easier when you have rocket money. Reviewing our finances used to be such a hassle. But now that we have rocket money, we save so much time compared to the time we used to spend. Not only does rocket money help you see where your money is being spent, but it helps you try. subscriptions, set budgets and goals, get personalized insights and regular reports, and receive

real-time alerts for those bigger transactions, your upcoming bills, refunds, as well as low balances. 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. This episode is brought to you by L'Oreal Group. Beauty is a powerful force that moves us.

That's why L'Oreal Group has built a business that is inclusive at its heart with 100% of its brands, championing diversity. With 25,000 professional opportunities for people under 30 worldwide and 54% of leading positions held by women, Diversity is a strength that helps Loreal Group create the best beauty products for all people. Visit Loreal.com to learn more. Welcome back. Last week, President Trump unveiled what's being described as the new Air Force one,

but there's actually a little bit of nuance here. So I want to talk about it. A couple of things to point out at the outset, number one, this is not the long-term replacement that the United States originally ordered from Boeing. The Air Force is calling this plane a quote-unquote bridge aircraft because it's meant to fill. the gap while the United States waits for the two planes that Boeing is still building. We'll get into that more in a minute because we also have to talk about the guitar piece of this. But the second thing I want to point out, and this is actually more of a fun fact, is that technically Air Force One

is not the name of one specific plane. It's actually the call sign used for any Air Force aircraft when the president is on board. So if the president is on board, one of the big specially modified Boeing 747s, that's Air Force One. If the president is on a smaller Air Force aircraft, that's also Air Force One. And then Marine One works the same way. Marine One is the call sign for any Marine Corps aircraft when the president is on board. So the president's helicopter is most well known as Marine One, but technically Marine One is not the name of that specific helicopter. It's the call sign when the president is on it. And then, just to add another layer here, if the president were on a civilian plane or a private plane. The call sign would generally generally be

executive one. So just a little fun fact for this Monday afternoon. But I digress. With all of that being said in everyday conversation when people say Air Force One, they're usually referring to, you know, the big, specially modified plane that flies the president around the world. So on Friday, President Trump unveiled this new Boeing 7478 at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland. And as I said, this will serve as the bridge aircraft until Boeing delivers the two planes that the Air Force ordered back in 2018. Those planes have been delayed again and again, and they aren't expected until mid-20208 at this point. The bridge plane has spent the last year or so being modified by the Air Force and set up for the

president's use, and it even has a new design. So currently, the president's plane is white with light blue and gold accents, but this new plane is white with deep red, dark blue, and gold accents. Trump called it one of the most luxurious planes in the world when he revealed it and said it will lead a major July 4th flyover in Washington for America's 250th birthday. Now, this bridge plane is the plane Qatar gifted to the United States last year. So back in May of last year, when the press secretary confirmed the plane, she said, quote, the Qatari government has graciously offered to donate a plane to the Department of Defense. The legal details of that are still being worked out. But of course, any donation to this government is always done in full compliance with the law.

And we commit ourselves to the utmost transparency and we will continue to do that. And quote, when asked whether the Qatari government is possibly doing this so they can get something from the president in return, Leavitt rejected that concern, saying the Qatari government knows that President Trump only acts with the American people's interests in mind. When President Trump himself was asked about the plane, he said it would be stupid to turn down the offer. He also said, quote, if we can get a 747 as a contribution to our Defense Department to use during a couple of years while they're building the other ones, I think that was a very nice gesture. End quote. Now, back when I originally reported on this last year, a lot of you had questions. about the legality of something like this because under the Constitution's foreign emoluments clause,

federal officials are restricted from accepting gifts, payments, offices, titles, or any other benefits from foreign states without approval from Congress. And the basic idea behind that is to protect U.S. officials from foreign influence, right? But there's been a debate in the courts over the exact scope of the clause and how it applies to presidents. The Supreme Court has not given us a definitive answer. So while that question is still up in the air, presidents have long accepted gifts or other valuable items from foreign leaders. In fact, the very desk that the president sit at in the Oval Office was gifted by Queen Victoria in 1880. So the question is still up in the air, but at the same time, it has not stopped presidents from accepting gifts. Separately, though,

there's also this federal law called the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, and that specifically includes the president. And what that law says is that federal officials, obviously including the president, can generally keep foreign gifts worth less than the minimal value threshold. That minimal value threshold is currently $525. So gifts more than $525 are treated differently. They generally have to be declined unless refusing the gift would likely offend or embarrass the foreign government, or otherwise negatively affect U.S. foreign relations. And if an above threshold gift is accepted for that reason, it's not treated as a personal gift to the president or the official.

It's treated as property of the United States government. It has to be logged and then later disposed of by the White House gift unit. And when it's disposed of, it can either be transferred to the National Archives or to the president's future presidential library. Now, if a president decides he's going to raise, retain a gift for his own personal use, then he has to pay fair market value for it. So in this case, the administration's argument is that the Qatari plane was not given to Trump personally. It was a gift to the Department of Defense for use by the United States government as a temporary

presidential aircraft. Now, supporters of the arrangement say it's a practical solution to Boeing's delays, right? The United States needs a newer presidential aircraft since the ones flying around are roughly 30 years old. Boeing's replacement planes are years behind schedule and they keep getting delayed and accepting a donated plane saves taxpayers the cost of buying a plane from scratch. Critics, on the other hand, have their own concerns. One is an ethics concern. Even if the plane is technically accepted by the United States government and not the president, a gift this valuable from a foreign government still raises questions about influence and also optics. another concern is a legal concern, whether this arrangement fully avoids constitutional issues under the

foreign emoluments clause. And then there's also a security concern because Air Force One has to function as this, essentially a flying command center for the president, right, with protected communications, defense systems, the ability to operate during a crisis. So critics have questioned whether a foreign-owned plane or previously foreign-owned can really be fully inspected, modified, and so. secured enough. Now, the Air Force says it's addressed the security concerns. Officials say the plane is safe, secure, it's equipped with the technology it needs. So that's what the Air Force says about the security concerns. Keep in mind, though, also the plane isn't fully cleared for presidential use just yet. The Air Force says it's now entering commissioning flights, which the Air Force

basically describes as the plane's final exam. So it's the stage where officials validate that the aircraft can safely and securely do everything it needs to do before it's officially added to the active presidential aircraft fleet. At this point, the Air Force hasn't said exactly when it'll be ready, but once those commissioning flights are successfully completed, that's when it will become available for presidential use. So that's what's going on with the new Air Force plane. It is a bridge plane until Boeing can deliver the two planes that were ordered back in 2018. And President Trump has said that once those two planes are delivered, this plane, this bridge plane will then go to his future presidential library. On Thursday, then Director of National

Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, released roughly 400 pages of documents that her office says show Dr. Fauci helped influence intelligence assessments and lied to Congress about the U.S. funded research connected to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These are allegations Fauci has disputed. A press release from her office reads, quote, before the COVID-19 pandemic, and Anthony Fauci as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided millions in U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund gain of function research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, work which is now widely viewed as the source of the unintentional lab leak that sparked the pandemic. Today, Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, is releasing never-before-seeing communications and documents exposing how Fauci worked with politicized career leadership in the intelligence community to support. press the truth about his actions, the viruses lab leak origins, and his role in directing U.S. funding for this dangerous research that caused immeasurable harm and countless lost lives. These documents expose Fauci's direct role in influencing and manipulating IC assessments on

COVID-19 and how Fauci lied to Congress in 2024 when under oath he denied knowledge of or participation in discussions with intelligence officials about viral research. end quote. Now at the outset, we do know this, okay? So I want to talk about what's undisputed and then I'll talk about what's at the center of this whole dispute. So it's undisputed that the NIH gave grant money to a group called EcoHealth Alliance back in 2014. And EcoHealth worked with the Wuhan Institute of Irology on bat coronavirus research. EcoHealth received millions in NIH funding and about $600,000 of that reportedly went to the Wuhan Institute. The project was called understanding the risk of bat coronavirus emergence, and it's

studied bat coronaviruses and their potential to spill over into humans. So that part is undisputed, okay? What is disputed is whether that research should be called gain of function research. And both sides are using different definitions. Both sides know that viruses were modified in a lab. that's not the issue. The issue is, was this gain of function research? And really, this all boils down to Dr. Fauci's congressional testimony after the pandemic. So Dr. Fauci has long said that this was not gain of function research and therefore U.S. taxpayers did not fund gain of function research. And he's testified under oath saying the same thing. Republican lawmakers say he lied to Congress when he said that because they say this was gain of function research. And U.S.

taxpayer dollars were used for gain of function research. Fauci, though, says his answer was based on a narrow government definition, not the broad definition of gain of function. So under the broad definition, gain of function means scientists change something in a virus and the virus gained a new ability or an existing ability got stronger. That could mean the virus becomes better at infecting cells, better at spreading. Maybe it becomes more dangerous in lab animals. Maybe it's better able to survive certain conditions, things like that. But Fauci says when he testified before Congress, he was using a narrow government oversight definition under a 2017 HHS framework. And that framework is about research that is reasonably anticipated to either create, transfer, or use an enhanced potential

pandemic pathogen, meaning a pathogen whose transmissibility and or virulence in humans has been enhanced. Okay. So as you can tell, it's a much more narrow definition than the broad definition of gain of function. N.I.H's own explanation says this kind of research is a type of gain of function research, but that the vast majority of gain of function research does not involve this type of research and falls outside that stricter oversight category. So the key limiting phrase is potential pandemic pathogen, right? Under this narrower framework, the pathogen has to be highly transmissible, capable of wide, uncontrolled spread in humans, and likely highly virulent, causing significant morbidity

or mortality in humans. Fauci testified that when he said NIH did not fund gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute, he meant it didn't fund research that met that stricter definition. Now, Gabbard says these new files provide evidence that the research crossed the narrower government line. Fauci says that he was relying on. Okay. So that is the background. That is the context. I want to take our second. I don't want to, but I have to. We have to take our second and final ad break here. When we come back, we'll talk about what the files actually show and whether there's any merit to Gabbard's claim.

Are you one of those media strategy people clicking through slides, scrolling spreadsheets? Yes? Good. This is for you. Because on Spotify, there's an audience that's different. Locked in. Loyal, invested. They're called fans. Fans don't just listen to music. They feel seen by it, like it belongs to them.

So when your brand shows up on Spotify, that's who you're talking to. And you're right next to artists like me, Lizzo. So, are you ready to talk to fans? Spotify advertising. You're among fans. Welcome back. Before the break, we laid out the dispute, right? Taxpayer-funded research involving the Wuhan Institute of Irology happened. We know that. The fight is over whether that research should be called gain of function. Fauci says he was relying on this narrower government definition. Gabbard says these files prove the research conducted crossed that line and meets that narrower definition and therefore Fauci lied during his congressional testimony. So now let's look at the

files themselves because if we're analyzing these files under the narrower government definition of gain of function, the questions become one. Did any of these newly released documents show that the work enhanced the bat coronavirus's ability to spread among humans? Two, did any of the documents show that this kind of result was reasonably expected before the research was funded. Three, did any of the documents show whether the resulting virus met a pandemic level standard? And four, is there anything else in this document release that might support the narrower definition of gain of function? And I'll tell you up front, the answer is yes, there are pieces of evidence in this document release that could support the narrower definition argument,

but there are also missing pieces. So, the The strongest evidence that would support the narrower definition would probably be this grant report, okay, that shows researchers proposed to test bat coronavirus using reverse genetics, pseudoviruses, receptor binding assays, virus infection experiments in cell culture and humanized mice, and to create mutants of bat coronavirus spike receptor binding fusion genes to test how significantly they would need to evolve to use human receptors. They were essentially testing what changes could make bat coronavirus better able to infect human type systems. The results section says that what they did is they infected mice engineered to express human AC2 receptors with four SARS-related bat coronaviruses. And according to the report, all four viruses caused lethal infection in at least some of those mice, though the death rates did vary. One strain appeared to be especially dangerous in that mouse model. So critics would say that this is the strongest evidence for the narrower definition

argument because scientists were testing these viruses in a human-like system and the result showed serious disease and death in that model. However, and this is important, humanized mice still aren't humans, right? A virus making humanized mice sick or even killing some of those mice supports the argument that the research created or tested something dangerous, but the narrowest government risk category of gain of function research usually turns on whether the work was expected to create or use a pathogen with serious pandemic potential, not just that it can infect or that it can make lab my sick, but that it could spread widely and dangerously in people. And of the documents that I reviewed, I haven't seen documents showing that the modified viruses

had enhanced human-to-human transmissibility. So that's one part of this. The next question is, was the dangerous outcome reasonably expected before the research was funded? And this is mixed, but there is evidence that critics can point to. So the stated goal of this project was to understand the risk of bat coronavirus spillover into humans. And the report says that the team, planned, as we said before, to use reverse genetics, pseudoviruses, receptor binding tests, cell culture experiments, and humanized mice to test cross-species transmission risk. It also says that they plan to create mutants to see what changes would allow bat coronaviruses to use human receptors. So critics could say this project was specifically designed to test

whether bat coronaviruses could become more capable of infecting humans. And that was a key component of the project. But the limitation is that still doesn't automatically prove NIH should have expected the work to create this pandemic level pathogen, right? It shows they expected to study human infection potential, but it doesn't necessarily show they expected to create a virus capable of the widespread human transmission we saw. And then finally, the other question we have to ask, did any resulting virus meet a pandemic level standard? not conclusively from what I saw. The files definitely show serious warning signs, right? But pandemic level is a higher bar. It's a much higher bar. So to wrap this up,

Gabbard's documents do provide evidence that might support the narrower definition Fauci used when testifying, especially the humanized mouse experiments, the lethal infections, the human receptor focus, the chimeric viruses infecting human cells. But at the same time, the documents don't unequivocally established that the research meets that narrower definition because there's not necessarily proof of enhanced human to human spread or a clear showing that the resulting virus met that higher pandemic level transmissibility standard. So still, you get back to square one. Under the broad general definition, this is gain of function research.

But the question still stands as to whether the research definitively fits into the narrower government definition that Fauci said he was relying on when he testified. And yes, these documents provide more evidence that the research might fit that narrower definition, but it still hasn't been unequivocally established. Let's do some quick hitters. Former Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan died Monday at age 100 from complications of Parkinson's disease. Greenspan led the Fed from 1987 to 2006 under four presidents, making him the second longest serving head of the central bank. He was praised for helping guide the United States through the 1987 stock market. crash and a long economic expansion into the 90s, but his legacy became a bit more complicated

after the 2008 financial crisis when critics blamed low interest rates and weak mortgage oversight for helping fuel the housing bubble. Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent Alberto Carvalho has resigned about four months after the FBI searched his home and LA USDA headquarters as part of an undisclosed federal investigation. Carvalho had been placed on paid leave after the searches. He denied wrongdoing and he had asked to be reinstated, but he has now resigned. The details of the investigation remain unclear and at this point no charges have been filed against him. A federal judge ruled that the DOJ can give the Heritage Foundation redacted versions of former President Biden's conversations with his ghostwriter, which were part of former

special counsel hers classified documents investigation. The Heritage Foundation had sued over a FOIA for the materials, Biden had sought to block their release on privacy grounds. The judge said the records were of high public interest and that DOJ's redactions reduced the privacy concerns, but she also temporarily paused her order for three weeks to allow a possible appeal. The DOJ has so far refused to provide a signed declaration from acting attorney general Todd Blanche confirming that the Trump administration will not move forward with the opposed anti-weaponization fund. A federal judge had given the administration seven days to verify in writing that the fund would not be moving forward after previously issuing an injunction blocking it.

But the DOJ said in a court filing on Friday that, quote, such declarations are unnecessary. And the compelled testimony of senior officials from the executive branch implicates serious separation of powers concerns. And quote, so just to give you a little legal context here, courts are generally cautious about requiring senior executive branch officials to provide testimony, because that can raise separation of powers concerns. However, if the government wants a court to dismiss a lawsuit because it says that a challenge policy is no longer happening, as it is here, the government usually has to show that the issue is truly over and won't be coming back. So under what's called the voluntary cessation doctrine, we talked about this a few weeks ago,

defendant usually cannot just end a lawsuit by saying, okay, we're done, you know, like the challenged conduct is no longer happening. The party claiming that the issue is now moot has the burden to show that it is absolutely clear that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably happen again. And the Supreme Court has weighed in on this saying that a broad, unconditional, irrevocable promise can sometimes be enough to moot a case, but weaker or ambiguous a may not be. So the judge's request is not unusual here, but we will have to see how this develops. All right, let's talk about some positive news. After the Knicks championship win, I'm sure some of you, maybe all of you, saw the videos. Some of the celebrations in New York were great. Some of them got a bit

out of hand. And one taxi driver named Nora Dean ended up caught in the middle of one of these not-so-great celebrations. So videos. showed him being dragged from his cab, briefly assaulted, and then watching as people climbed on top of his taxi and smashed its windows. Now, this video reached six million people on X, including rapper French Montana, who left a comment on the video saying that if someone could find the man who owned that taxi, he'd like to help him overcome the financial hit. So French Montana then connected with Zachary Daronowski and the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, which is the union that Noradine belongs to, and together they helped launch a GoFundMe.

As of yesterday, the GoFundMe had raised about $77,000 for more than 2,000 donors, which is just over 2,000 more than the GoFundMe's goal. So that's great knowing that Noradine can now get a new taxi, all thanks to just good people who wanted to donate. If you want to donate, I do have the link in the sources section of this episode, which you can always find in the show notes. The second piece of good news is researchers at University College London hospitals are testing whether CAR T-cell therapy, a treatment already used in some blood cancers, could help people with severe treatment-resistant lupus. So lupus is an autoimmune

disease, which means the immune system mistakenly attacks the body's own healthy tissue. And in the more severe cases, it can actually affect pretty major organs like the kidneys, lungs, and even the heart. And in this early phase one trial, nine adults with severe lupus had received the treatment as of November 2025. All of them had highly active disease despite trying multiple previous therapies and most actually had lupus nephritis, which is a serious form of lupus that affects the kidneys. The early results show that five of the first six patients treated at the lower dose, achieved remission under standard lupus criteria. And researchers also saw improvements in disease activity and lab markers. One of those patients is Katie Tinkler, who has lived with

lupus for decades before the trial. Her kidneys were deteriorating. Her lungs were inflamed. She had developed myocarditis, which is inflammation of the heart muscle. And after treatment, she said the difference was night and day. She said her joint paint went away. Her lupus markers returned to normal for the first time in more than 30 years. She was able to do things again like swim, garden, ski. She was able to dance at her daughter's wedding. So the good news is that this treatment seems to be doing more than just quieting the symptoms. Researchers think it might be helping reset the immune system by targeting the disease driving B cells involved in lupus. Now, of course, the trial is small. The follow-up is still ongoing. Researchers say they need

larger studies to confirm how durable and safe this really is long term, but still, for people with severe lupus who have run out of options, this is a very hopeful step forward. Okay, let's finish with critical thinking. We are going back to the Tulsi Gabbard, Dr. Fauci story. We're going to assume two things are true here, okay? We are going to assume that this research was gain of function research under a broad general definition. but we're also going to assume that it might not clearly meet the narrower government definition

that Fauci says he was using. What do you do with that? Do you consider that to be a lie? Do you consider that to be a technical distinction? Is it something in the middle? Is it an answer that might be technically defensible but not fully, you know, clear or should require clarity? What do you do with this information? What's your opinion on it? And then of course, would you, would you, apply the same standard no matter who was testifying, if someone from your own side gave a similarly, you know, technically narrow answer to a question of similar magnitude, would you defend it as careful wording? And if someone from the other side gave that exact same answer, would you still see it that way? You know, would you still defend it as careful wording? Or would you be more likely

to call it a lie? Just as a reminder, tomorrow is an opinion day at the Supreme Court. So if we get anything big. I will probably just make a video for social media since there's not another episode until Thursday. But then in Thursday's episode, we will cover any big opinions from tomorrow and Thursday because Thursday is the next opinion day. Have a great next couple of days. Don't forget to leave the show a five-star review on Apple Podcast or Spotify. And I will talk to you soon.