UNBIASED - June 25, 2026: Trump Cancels Housing Bill Signing, the Supreme Court Hands Down Major Rulings, and the Senate Splits on War Powers. PLUS Addressing Rumors!

Episode Date: June 25, 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 Cancels Housing Bill Signing; Here's What the Housing Bill Says and Why The Signing Was Cancelled (0:50) Trump Has Meeting on Capitol Hill With GOP Senators; Senate Later Votes Against War Powers Resolution (9:16) Supreme Court Hands Down Nine Decisions Between Tuesday and Today; Here's What They Say (13:53) Quick Hitters (~39:55) Rumor Has It (~45:15) Critical Thinking Segment (~53:36) ⁠Watch⁠ this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on ⁠Instagram⁠ and ⁠TikTok⁠. All sources for this episode can be found ⁠here.⁠  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, June 25th, and we're talking about the housing affordability bill and why President Trump canceled the signing ceremony, the most recent war powers resolution vote in the Senate, recent Supreme Court rulings, and much more. Just as a heads up, this episode is going to be a bit Supreme Court heavy. It is going to be that way today and through next week because as we talked about in Monday's episode, this is when the court releases the more high profile cases of the term. So I do want to make sure we cover those. But let's start today's episode talking about what's going on with this housing

affordability bill. And then we'll get to the Supreme Court and, you know, quick hitters. Rumor has it, all that stuff. Yesterday, President Trump said he would not be signing the bipartisan an affordability bill until lawmakers passed the Save America Act. So I want to back up and I want to talk about what this housing bill is. On Tuesday, the Senate passed a bill called the 21st Century Road to Housing Act with the overall goal of making homeownership more affordable by increasing housing supply, speeding up construction of new builds, expanding financing options, and then also limiting how many single family homes large corporate investors can buy. Now, the House had already passed, you know, its own version of this bill earlier this year. The Senate then made some changes

and it passed its version. So the bill went back to the House on Wednesday night after it passed the Senate. The House approved the Senate's changes and then sent the bill to the president's desk. What I want to do is I want to break this up into two parts. So first, I want to talk about what's actually in the housing bill. Then we'll talk about why Trump canceled the signing and what the Save America Act has to do with all of this. So here are some of the bigger things the 21st Century Road to Housing Act would do. First, it would stop large corporate investors from buying up even more single family homes to rent out. Basically, if a company already controls at least 350 single family homes, it would not be allowed to keep buying more. And the goal there

is to make it harder for big corporate landlords to swoop in with these cash offers, outbid regular families and then end up taking over parts of the housing market. There's also another side to this. So these investors actually only make up about 3% of the single family rental market. And some experts are warning that a ban like this could actually limit the supply of available homes. And their argument is that investors sometimes buy homes that, you know, need work and then they fix them up. And by doing that, they keep these houses on the market. So if you limit those purchases, it could potentially reduce the number of homes available,

especially in those areas where houses might otherwise sit empty. Another big part of the bill is about making it easier and faster to build housing. So it would streamline some of the rules that builders generally have to follow when they're trying to get federal financing. For example, in some cases, a builder could skip a separate environmental review if the project is being built between two existing buildings that have already done the review. So that's an example of how it would kind of streamline things for new builds. The bill would also create grants for communities to come up with something called pattern books, which are basically

collections of pre-approved housing designs. And the idea is that, you know, if a builder uses one of those pre-approved designs, they might not have to go through as many extra approvals, which could then save time and money. Then there's also a section of this bill. focused on manufactured homes. So right now, manufactured homes generally have to be built with a permanent chassis, basically a steel frame that allows the home to be moved. But a lot of these homes are eventually placed on permanent foundations anyway. So this bill would get rid of that requirement. And housing policy experts say that that could actually cut construction costs by around $5,000 to $10,000 per home, as well as make it easier to build designs with things like a second

story or a basement. Now, those provisions obviously only make up a fraction of this bill, but you get the gist. So Congress passes the bill. It goes to the president's desk and he was expected to sign it, given how much bipartisan support that it has. But yesterday, he wrote on true social, quote, today's housing news conference and signing is hereby canceled until such time as we pass the desperately needed Save America Act, which I consider to be a national emergency. And quote. So that brings us to part two, the Save America Act. What is it? The Save America Act is that bill that deals with proof of citizenship requirements to vote in federal elections. The main idea is that someone would have to show documentary proof of U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote

in federal elections. That could include things like a valid U.S. passport, certain real ID documents that show citizenship, a government ID showing U.S. birthplace, a military, ID plus service record, a birth certificate paired with a photo ID, some other federal proof of citizenship. The bill, the Save America Act would also change the rules for mail and online voter registration. So if someone uses the national mail voter registration form, they wouldn't be registered for federal elections until they provide proof of citizenship by the state deadline. And then in states with same day registration, they would have to provide that proof at the polling place by election day. The Save America Act would also require states to take ongoing affirmative

steps to make sure only U.S. citizens are registered to vote. Now, again, that's not the entire bill. Those are the main points of the bill. And that is the bill Trump says has to pass Congress before he signs the housing affordability bill. As far as the likelihood of that happening, the likelihood of Congress passing the Save America Act. The Save America Act appears to have enough Republicans support to pass the House. But the Senate is much harder. And that's because most bills need 60 votes to get past a filibuster in the Senate. Republicans would likely need Democratic support in the Senate. And right now that support does not appear to be there. So what Trump is trying to do here is he's trying to use leverage. Because he wants Congress to pass the Save America Act, he's trying to make it harder for

lawmakers to ignore it by tying it to other bills that Congress either wants to pass or feels pressure to pass. In this case, he's tying it to the bipartisan housing affordability bill because he knows Congress wants to pass it. And this isn't the first time that he's used this strategy, by the way. He's also delayed the confirmation process for his nominee for the director of national intelligence, Jay Clayton. He's also said he opposed renewing FISA, the major foreign surveillance authority unless, you know, the Save America Act was attached. So he, this is, this isn't a new strategy, but there are limits to this strategy. Even if Trump ties, tries to tie the Save America Act to another bill, that doesn't automatically mean it can pass.

Because if it goes through the normal Senate process, it would still probably need 60 votes. And like I said, right now it does not look like Republicans have those votes. that's why they might try another route called reconciliation, which allows certain bills to pass the Senate with a simple majority instead of that 60 vote threshold. But reconciliation is mostly meant for budget-related issues, things like taxes and spending, not necessarily voter ID requirements. So whether a bill would even qualify for record or whether a bill like this, like the Save America Act, would even qualify for reconciliation is a whole other issue.

Perhaps parts of it could. it's just not clear the whole thing could. But at the end of the day, that's why Trump canceled the signing ceremony. He wants to use the housing bill. A bill Congress already passed and a bill both parties largely support as leverage to pressure Congress into passing the Save America Act. I do also want to mention that under the Constitution, once a bill passes both chambers of Congress, which obviously this housing bill has done that. The president has 10 days, not counting Sundays to either sign or veto the bill. If the president doesn't do either of those things and the bill just sits on his desk, the bill automatically becomes law as long as as long as Congress

remains in session and is able to receive a veto message. And the Senate did or is starting a two-week break as of today, I believe. However, you know, when we get technical with it, lawmakers can still remain in session through what are called pro forma sessions. So that shouldn't be an issue. So depending on the exact date that the bill was formally presented to the president, the housing affordability bill could automatically become law if Trump doesn't touch it, doesn't sign it or veto it by the end of that 10-day window. Now, after canceling the signing ceremony, Trump went to Capitol Hill for a closed door lunch with Senate Republicans. This was a planned meeting. It was already planned before the cancellation, but the cancellation added a lot more attention to it because it turned the lunch into essentially. a pressure campaign over the Save America Act. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said it was, it was pretty much a one-sided conversation, meaning Trump was doing most of the talking at this lunch.

He was asked if senators were able to express to Trump that some of his priorities don't have the support in the Senate among GOP senators. And Thune said, quote, it was kind of a one-sided conversation. So I just don't think it was the, I don't think it was the place to do that. And quote, Thune added, quote, I talked to him after the event. I think it kind of went like maybe most people expected. He was pretty fired up about a couple of issues and so people heard him out. But I think in the end, we all realized to be successful and effective, we've got to pull the team together. End quote.

It was also reported that at this meeting, Trump and Republican Senator Bill Cassidy got into a bit of a yelling match over the Iran war. Cassidy told reporters that this exchange came after Trump asked the senators, why they would vote for a resolution limiting his authority to continue military action involving Iran, because as we know, on Tuesday, the Senate approved that war powers resolution. And Cassidy said, quote, the president was wondering why people would vote for the War Powers Act. I asked him if that would be a rhetorical question, a real question. He said real. And so as we begin to speak, the president didn't want to hear my question.

It interrupted me. I didn't care to be interrupted. I felt like I was trying to get answers for the American people. And I'm not going to be bullied when I'm trying to get answers for the American people. And so it escalated from there. At some point, it de-escalated. End quote. When reporters asked him if Trump called him a lunatic, as CNN had reported, Cassidy said, quote,

can I imagine that the president called me things that would be said on a school, on a playground? Yeah, I can imagine that. And quote. Cassidy also said that they both, meaning himself as well as President Trump, lost their tempers. Now, the reason we're talking about this exchange is because of what happened after that. So later in the day, after that meeting, Cassidy ended up getting briefed by Vice President Vance and Special Envoy Whitkoff. And he posted on X afterwards, I want to thank Vice President Vance and Special Envoy Whitkoff for this thorough briefing this afternoon on Iran. I appreciate the quick invitation to the White House to address many of my concerns.

End quote. Then later that night, so last night, the Senate held another vote on a war powers resolution. And this part's a little confusing because it wasn't the exact same vote from the day before. So on Tuesday afternoon, the Senate approved a House passed concurrent resolution directing the president to remove U.S. forces from hostilities with Iran. That resolution had already passed the House and then it passed the Senate 40 to 58. But because it was a concurrent resolution, that's what it's called, it did not go to the president for a signature and it didn't carry the full force of law. That's just what a concurrent resolution is. It doesn't go to the president. It doesn't carry the force of law. It's really just a symbolic measure. On Wednesday night, though, Senate Republicans brought up a separate but nearly identical resolution, but this was a joint resolution. Unlike a concurrent resolution, a joint resolution does go to the president for signature if both chambers pass it. It's treated as a bill. Then it has the potential to become a law. This time, the vote was on whether to move forward. with that joint resolution. It was a procedural vote, not a final vote, but it failed 47 to 50 to 1.

And the difference came largely from Cassidy and Senator Rand Paul voting differently than they had the day before. Cassidy voted against moving forward with the measure and Paul voted present, which means a senator is there and participating in the vote, but not voting yes or no. So all this to say, after that meeting with President Trump, and despite that tense moment between Cassidy and Trump, Cassidy ended up changing his position on the War Powers resolution. Senator Paul did the same, didn't exactly vote against it, but voted present. And because of those two flips, the joint resolution that the Senate attempted to pass Wednesday night did not pass. So that is the latest on where things stand in the Senate. it. Now we have to move on to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court handed down five decisions on Tuesdays on Tuesdays on Tuesdays were pretty technical, but they still touch on some of the

bigger issues like immigration, religious freedom, property rights, etc. I am just kind of going to skim past the lesser known cases, but I'll elaborate a bit more on some of the more notable ones. So let's start with the immigration case from Tuesday. The court ruled that immigration officials do not need to have clear and convincing evidence before treating a lawful permanent resident as an applicant for admission when that person is coming back into the United States and is accused of committing a crime involved in what's called moral turpitude. So this case involved a green card holder who left the country, then try to come back while facing certain criminal charges. And the question was, how much proof does the government need before it can treat that person more like someone

applying to enter the country instead of someone who already has legal permanent resident status. And the court said federal law does not require that higher, clear, and convincing evidence standard. Instead, immigration officials can make that decision under the lower standard that generally applies at this stage of the process. The court also ruled in a religious freedom case. This case involved a Rastafarian prisoner whose dreadlocks were cut by prison officials. For context, Rostafarians often wear dreadlocks as part of their religious practice. So the prisoner argued that when the prison officials cut his hair, they violated his religious rights.

But the question before the Supreme Court was narrower than that. The question was, can this prisoner personally sue the individual prison employees for money damages under the federal religious freedom law he relied on? And the court said no. Basically, the law he sued under allows prisoners to challenge government actions that burden their religious exercise. And in some cases, it can be used to stop the government from continuing that conduct. But the court said this law does not allow someone to sue individual government employees for money out of their own pockets. In another case, the court dealt with a Michigan family whose home was sold after a property tax dispute. And this case gets into the Fifth Amendment.

So the Fifth Amendment, and this will bring you back to Unbiased University, but the Fifth Amendment says that the government cannot take private property for public use without paying just compensation. It cannot take your land to build a park or whatever without paying you just compensation. If the government takes your property, it has to pay you fairly for it. That's just how it works. So here's what happened. The family owed a little over $2,000 in unpaid property taxes. The county ended up foreclosed. on the home and sold it at a public auction for about $76,000, even though the home had been

assessed at about $200,000. The person who bought the home at the tax auction turned around and resold the home for significantly more. So the question for the court was when the government takes and sells your property in this way, how much does it owe you? Is it enough to give you the leftover money from the tax auction sale? Or does the government have to compensate you based on what the home was actually worth on the open market. The family argued they should be paid based on the home's fair market value. The court disagreed. The court said the proper amount was the auction price from the tax sale, not what the home

might have been worth on the open market. Let's take our first break here. When we come back, we'll finish with two more decisions from Tuesday, and then we'll talk about today's decisions. Visit BetMDM casino and check out the newest exclusive. The price is right. 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. BetMGEMGEMG operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. 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.

Moving right along with Supreme Court rulings, we have two more to cover from Tuesday. So the court decided a case involving property seized by the Cuban government after the Cuban Revolution. We'll keep this one short. But basically ExxonMobil says Cuba took property that belonged to its predecessor company decades ago and that Cuban government control companies are now using or benefiting from that property. And by the way, this case turns on a law called the Helms-Burton Act. The Helms-Burton Act allows certain lawsuits over property confiscated by the Cuban government. But the Cuban companies argued that even if that law applies, they should still be protected by foreign sovereign immunity, which is the rule that or the general rule that foreign governments and sometimes government controlled entities usually can't be sued in U.S. courts.

The Supreme Court, though, said ExxonMobil can move forward under the Helmsburtan Act and that these Cuban government-controlled companies don't get to rely on that foreign sovereign immunity defense. And then the last decision from Tuesday involved Cisco and members of Falun Gong, a religious movement that's been persecuted in China. So the plaintiffs accused Cisco of helping the Chinese government build surveillance tools that were then allegedly used to identify, track, and target members of this religious group. They wanted to sue Cisco in U.S. court for money damages. But the legal question was whether this specific federal law called the alien tort statute allowed, this kind of lawsuit. That law, the alien tort statute, lets certain non-U.S. citizens bring certain international law claims in U.S. courts. However, the Supreme Court said courts cannot use this alien tort statute to create a new kind of lawsuit against a company for allegedly helping

or aiding and abetting human rights violations abroad. In other words, if companies are going to be sued in U.S. courts for this kind of conduct overseas, Congress has to explicitly say so. So those were Tuesday's decisions. Today, the court released four more. One of those cases from today involved, it was more of a litigation focused case. Two of them were related to immigration, and then one dealt with the second amendment. The first case was Durnell. This was 7 to 2 written by Justice Kavanaugh. This is what happened. John Dernel sued Monsanto, saying that he used the weed killer roundup for about 20 years and he later developed non-Hodgkins lymphoma. He argued that Monsanto should have warned users on the label that Roundup could cause cancer because

Missouri law allowed him to bring a failure to warn claim if the product was sold without an adequate warning of its dangers. And initially, a Missouri jury agreed with them and awarded him $1.25 million. But Monsanto appealed and argued that federal law blocks Dernel's claim because the EPA had approved Roundup's label without a cancer warning. And under federal pesticides, law, Monsanto has to use the EPA approved label unless the EPA approves or requires a change. So the question here was, can a state law lawsuit require a cancer warning when the EPA approved federal label doesn't include one? And the court said no. It ruled that the federal pesticide law preempts Dernel's failure to warn a claim. In other words, Missouri can't use state

law to require a label warning that's different from or in addition to the label required under federal law. Now, the dissent argued that federal law already says pesticide labels need to include warnings that are necessary and adequate. And Missouri law was basically just trying to enforce that same idea. So in the dissent's view, this wasn't Missouri creating some extra labeling rule. It was just Missouri saying, you know, Monsanto should be liable if Roundup's label was inadequate. it. Justice Jackson in dissenting argued that EPA approval of the label shouldn't automatically

shut down that kind of lawsuit because under federal law, an EPA approved label can still turn out to be misbranded or legally inadequate. We also got Waldford v. Lopez today. This is a Second Amendment case. It was six to three along ideological lines written by Justice Alito. After the Supreme Court's 22 decision in Bruin, which said the Second Amendment protects the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense, Hawaii changed its gun laws. And one of those new laws said that even people with concealed carry permits could not bring a firearm onto private property that is open to the public. So stores, restaurants, gas stations, coffee shops, et cetera, unless the property owner gives the concealed carry holder express permission to do so. So the default

rule in Hawaii was basically you can't carry a firearm onto private property open to the public unless the owner affirmatively says that you can. Well, several Hawaii residents who had concealed carry permits sued, and they argued that this violated their Second Amendment rights. So the question for the Supreme Court was, can Hawaii ban licensed concealed carry permit holders from carrying firearms on private property open to the public unless the property owner expressly allows it? And the court said no. The court ruled that Hawaii's law violated the second and 14th amendments. The majority said this law places a major burden on the right to carry a handgun for self-defense in everyday life and said Hawaii hadn't shown a strong enough historical tradition

to support that kind of broad default rule. Now, the dissent argued that Hawaii isn't banning people from carrying guns everywhere. It's saying that before you bring a gun onto someone else's private property, the owner should have to clearly say yes. And even under Bruin's history-focused test, the dissent said there were enough historical examples of states requiring permission before someone carried a gun onto another person's property and therefore Hawaii's law should have been upheld. Then we got a decision in Mullen v. L. Ocho Lado. Another six to three decision along ideological lines written by Justice Alito. This one dealt with asylum seekers at the U.S. Mexico border. So back in 2016, CBP was dealing with a surge of people seeking admission at ports

of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border. Oftentimes, it would be more than what the port could adequately process. So the DHS adopted a policy called metering. Basically, CBP limited the number of people it would inspect each day and allow to apply for asylum. To enforce that policy, officials would stand on the U.S. side of the border and stop additional people from entering once the port had reached the number it could process. The government actually ended up rescinding the metering process.

policy in November 2021 under the Biden administration. But the case continued anyway because the lower court ruling at the time still restricted the government from metering in the Ninth Circuit. And the government said it wanted the option to resume metering when border conditions warrant it. So anyway, in 2017, shortly after this metering policy was adopted, a group of asylum seekers and an immigration advocacy organization called El Ocho L. Otrolato sued. And they argued that CBP was unlawfully denying inspection and asylum processing to people who showed up at the border and were trying to enter the United States. And this case really came down to the phrase arrives in the United States because under the law, once someone arrives in the United States, they are treated as an applicant for admission. They have to be inspected by immigration officials and they can apply for asylum.

So the question was, does someone arrive in the United States when they're still standing on the Mexico side of the border but are about to cross over? Or do they only arrive in the United States once they actually cross into the United States? Now, a district court sided with El Otrillado and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed saying that a person arrives in the United States when they are standing on the Mexico side of the border and encounter a U.S. official. But the government appealed and took this question to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court said no. A person only arrives in the United States once they cross the border. The majority said that someone standing in Mexico doesn't arrive in the United States just by trying and failing to enter. So what this really means is that immigration law does not require the government to inspect someone or allow them to apply for asylum while they are still on the Mexico side of the border.

they only have a legal right to apply for asylum once they actually cross. The dissent argued that the majority made this way too technical. They said, if someone walks up to a lawful port of entry and asks for asylum, the government shouldn't be able to avoid the asylum and inspection process just by stopping them inches before they cross onto U.S. soil. Justice Sotomayor said the immigration laws should be read to cover people who are arriving at the border and seeking admission, not just people who fit. physically make it across. And then the last decision of the day was Mullen v. Doe.

Another immigration-related case decided six to three along ideological lines written by Justice Alito. The case involved temporary protected status or TPS. So Congress created TPS to provide short-term humanitarian relief for people who cannot safely return to their home countries because of things like armed conflict, natural disaster, some other extraordinary and temporary condition. Okay. So Syria received TPS in 2012 because of conditions tied to the Assad regime in the Civil War. Haiti received TPS in 2010 after a really bad earthquake. And over time, both TPS designations were extended. Well, fast forward to 2025. DHS announces that TPS for Syria and Haiti would end. Syrian nationals with TPS sued to stop Syria's termination. Haiti nationals with TPS sued to

stop Haiti's termination. Lower courts granted what is called interim relief, they temporarily postponed those TPS terminations while the lawsuits continued. So in this case, the question for the Supreme Court was actually, are the challengers entitled to these court orders postponing the end of TPS while the litigation plays out? And the court said no. The court said the lower court should not have paused the terminations because TPS law largely blocks courts from reviewing these kinds of TPS decisions. And then when it came, Haiti had this specific equal protection claim.

They claimed that the termination of their TPS status was race-based. And so on that specific equal protection claim, the court said the claim was not likely enough to succeed to justify this kind of temporary relief. So just to be clear, the court did not decide the ultimate legality of ending TPS for Syria and Haiti. What it said was that the lower courts should not have used temporary court orders to keep TPS in place while the case is continued. The dissent argued that the court is letting these TPS terminations take effect too fast. The dissenting justices said that the challenges are not

just asking courts to decide the legality of the DHS's decision. They're saying DHS didn't follow the proper process Congress required before ending TPS. And then for Haiti, they're also saying that the decision might have been tainted by racial bias. And because those claims are likely enough to succeed. And because the harm to TPS holders is so serious, the lower courts were right to temporarily keep TPS in place while the lawsuits continued. Nonetheless, the practical effect of this ruling is that, you know, the cases can continue to the extent that any claims remain available. But in the meantime, the government can move forward with ending TPS for Syria and Haiti. There are eight cases left to decide this term. The court has

one opinion day scheduled for next week. That's on Monday. And then that means we will, we will have a second opinion day sometime next week. We don't know for sure what day that's going to be at. That'll likely close things out for this term. And that also means that we'll be getting the decisions in some of the more controversial cases next week. So I do want to put some of the bigger cases on your radar now just so you kind of know what to look out for. I would say the most significant case still to be decided is the birthright citizenship case. I would imagine the court saves that decision for its last day and releases it right before the holiday. Birthright citizenship is, of course, the idea that with limited exceptions, if you are born on U.S. soil, you are automatically a

U.S. citizen. However, President Trump issued an executive order last year that says only certain children born in the U.S. would be entitled to birthright citizenship. So you would need at least one parent to be a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident to be entitled to birthright citizenship. Now, based on oral arguments, it is not likely this ruling goes in Trump's favor, but we will see. There are also two cases about Trump's power to fire officials from independent agencies. One involves Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve's board of governors. So under federal law, Fed governors can only be removed for cause, meaning there has to be a legally sufficient reason. Trump tried to remove Cook accusing her a mortgage fraud before she joined the Fed, which she has

denied. So the question is whether those allegations, the mortgage fraud allegations, are enough to satisfy this for-cause requirement, especially because they involve conduct or alleged conduct from before she became a Fed governor. And then also there's a question as to whether Cook was entitled to more due process before being removed. The other firing case involves Rebecca Slaughter, a former member of the FTC. So FTC commissioners also have legal protections that are supposed to limit when the president can fire them. They can only be removed in cases of inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance of office. But Trump didn't cite any of those reasons when he removed slaughter. Instead, he said keeping her in office was inconsistent with his administration's priorities.

So the question in that case is, does the president have to follow those legal limits when firing FTC commissioners or does the Constitution give him broader power to remove them? The court is also expected to rule in a pretty major election case involving mail-in ballots. So Mississippi allows mail-in ballots to be counted if they're postmarked by election day so long as they're received within five days of election day. We know there are a handful of states that do this. But the question for the court is whether federal law requires all ballots to actually be received by election. day. And a decision here could affect how many states handle mail-in voting deadlines. There's also a campaign finance case to be decided involving how much political parties can spend in coordination with

candidates. So right now, federal law limits certain coordinated spending between parties and campaigns. The challengers here are arguing that those limits violate the First Amendment. So depending on how the court rules, this could change how much money political parties can spend directly helping their candidates. And then finally, the court's also looking at two cases involving transgender athletes. One case involves Idaho's law. The other involves West Virginia's law. Both laws are similar. They require girls and women's sports teams at public schools to be limited to students who meet the state's definition of female for purposes of school athletics. West Virginia's law applies to public schools and colleges. Idaho's law applies to public schools, colleges, and

universities. So the question for the court here is whether states can require school sports teams to be based on biological sex or whether those bans unlawfully discriminate against transgender girls and women. Based on oral arguments, the court does appear likely to uphold those laws. But again, we are still waiting for that decision. We will get it next week. All right, let's take our second and final break here. When we come back, we will finish with Quicketer's rumor has it and critical thinking. Hey, y'all. It's Kelly Clarkson with. 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.ca. Wayfair, every style, every home. Welcome back. Let's do some quick hitters. A former chief of staff to ex-New York City Mayor Eric Adams, Frank Caron, was charged with accepting more than $100,000 in bribes tied to a migrant shelter contract for a Queens Hotel. Prosecutors allege he used his position to help steer the contract to the hotel, which later received $6.8 million from city shelter contracts. Corone, his brother, the hotel owner, and a hotel employee were charged with crimes, including bribery, wire fraud, and money laundering. Coron's lawyer has denied the allegations.

The Trump administration announced a $450 million settlement with Kimor's over PFS pollution from company facilities in West Virginia, North Carolina, and New Jersey. FFAS, by the way, are a group of what are called forever chemicals because they don't break down easily and exposure to them has been linked to many health risks, including immune, developmental, liver, and certain cancer-related issues. So the settlement agreement includes a $22.5 million civil penalty, funding to reduce PFAS discharges, pollution controls, and clean drinking water support for nearby communities. Federal officials said it is the first comprehensive federal settlement involving pollution from a PFAS manufacturer. Notably, Kimours will still be allowed to make PFAS for certain

commercial and military uses, but this settlement requires additional steps aimed at limiting future contamination. A federal judge temporarily blocked the DOJ from obtaining medical records related to transgender patients who received gender transitioning care as minor. at New York hospitals. The records had been sought through grand jury subpoenas as part of a federal investigation, but the judge found the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in arguing that the request violated privacy protections. A hearing on whether to extend that temporary block is scheduled for July. A federal appeals court rejected the Trump administration's request for confidential voter registration data from Michigan, ruling the DOJ does not have the authority to

compel states to turn over their full voter rolls under the federal law it's cited. The decision is another setback for the administration's broader effort to obtain detailed voter data from states, which officials say is needed to help maintain accurate voter rolls. New inflation data from the Commerce Department showed that higher gas prices helped push annual inflation to 4.1% in May, which is the highest level in three years. And I don't think this is really a surprise to anyone. However, the new report shows that when you exclude food and energy prices, which tend to fluctuate the most, core inflation was at 3.4%, up slightly from 3.3% from the month before. And those numbers are based on the personal consumption expenditures price index

or PCE, which is the Fed Reserve's preferred measure of inflation. A two-day disclosure forum on unidentified anomalous phenomena or UAPs is scheduled to begin today in D.C., bringing together lawmakers, former government officials, and UFO researchers to discuss calls for greater government transparency. Organizers say they plan to urge Congress and the Trump administration to release additional records and strengthen protections for whistleblowers, while the Pentagon has said it has found no evidence of secret programs involving extraterrestrial technology. former L.A. fire department chief Kristen Crowley has sued L.A. Mayor Karen Bass for defamation, alleging Bass made false statements about her handling of the palisades fire. Crowley claims those

statements damaged her reputation and were made to shift blame after the fire. According to the lawsuit, Crowley alleges Bass made false statements while campaigning for re-election, including allegations Crowley was responsible for inoperable fire engines and failed to properly deploy firefighters ahead of the fire. The lawsuit alleges Bass, quote, sought to avoid accountability by shifting blame and lying, including by falsely claiming she was not aware of the nationally anticipated weather event. And quote, Crowley is seeking unspecified economic, compensatory, and punitive damages. She's also asking the court to award compensation for emotional distress, anxiety, humiliation, and harm to her reputation, along with attorney's fees and legal costs.

Bass's office described the filing as, quote, another meritless lawsuit from a disgruntled individual who was removed from her position, end quote. And the U.S. Postal Service has proposed a new rule that would require states to provide U.S.PS with a list of voters who are expected to receive mail-in ballots, along with ballot tracking information, before those ballots are mailed. Under the proposal, USPS would not deliver mail-in ballots to states that do not provide this information. Postmaster General David Steiner said the goal is to help ensure ballots are delivered to correct voters and to improve ballot security. This proposal stems from President Trump's executive order on election integrity and is currently open for public comment before a final rule is issued. Now it's time for rumor has it, my weekly segment where I address rumors and claims submitted by all of you and either confirm them, dispel them, or add context and simply tell you what we know. We do have quite a few today's. We're going to keep each one relatively short, but to the point.

First one, is President Trump really on an unreleased, highly potent weight loss drug? This is unconfirmed. This rumor stems from a stat news story, which is an outlet that focuses on health, medicine, life sciences, and biotech. And it reported earlier this week that, quote, millions of Americans with obesity are eagerly awaiting a powerful new drug from Eli Lilly called Reda Trutide, which has demonstrated, bariatric surgery levels of weight loss. Some aren't even waiting for approval from the Food and Drug Administration instead racing to acquire it through sketchy means. But Statt has learned that Eli Lilly and the FDA have allowed one person to gain access to the drug through the FDA's compassionate use program, a pathway that gives patients with serious and immediately life-threatening

medical issues, access to experimental treatments. This person was a 79-year-old man at the time the request was made in April, according to three sources familiar with the matter. Those sources who requested anonymity due to fear of reprisals said it drew the interest of top health officials suggesting the person receiving this drug was well connected. End quote. The article said that the request was so unusual, it could point to Trump, who was 79 in April and who received a monoclonal antibody cocktail to treat COVID through the same compassionate use FDA program. Now, the fact-checking platform Snopes reached out to the stat news reporter

who wrote this story, and she outlined several factors that led her to wonder if Trump was the man who received the drugs, but she did underscore that she did not know for sure. The reporter who goes by Lizzie Law on X posted, quote, sources told stat that application drew interest from top health officials. Given the demographics and the peculiar nature of the application, I asked the White House if this patient was President Trump, who turned 80 a week ago. I did not get a direct answer. And quote, a White House spokesperson then replied to Lizzie Law's post on X, writing, quote, because this has to be spelled out to Lizzie Law, who has proven herself to be an unsurious gossip columnist,

this application was not for the president. End quote. As of today, it hasn't been confirmed that the patient was or was not Trump. Next one. Are South African refugees getting iPads from the federal government? This is reportedly true except for the fact that they are supposedly receiving Android tablets, not iPads. According to the New York Times, South African refugees entering the United States will be receiving welcome bags featuring a variety of materials. The New York Times says that the materials include an Android tablet, an American flag, copies of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, a report commissioned by Trump during his first term, a welcome letter from the H.H.

and Prager U. Education Materials, which the New York Times referred to as, quote, right-wing education materials, end quote. The proposal for the bags is reportedly still being finalized, so this is not a set in stone thing. Now, there's a parallel story here because a few

of you asked whether the administration is only admitting white people into the United States. This is a claim that's circulating right now, and the reason people are saying this is because the Trump administration has largely shut down the normal refugee. admissions program while also at the same time creating and expanding this special refugee pathway

for white South Africans, mainly Afrikaners. Now, the United States operates an expedited refugee admissions program for South Africans primarily focused on resettling white Afrikaners. And the annual admissions cap for the program was recently expanded to 17,500 slots because the administration says, and this is also per a executive order, by by President Trump from last year that white Afrikaners faced discrimination and persecution by the South African government. This is a claim the South African government has disputed. And I covered this story in much more detail last year in my May 12th, 2025 episode. Now, at the same time, while the South African refugee program has been expanded on Trump's first day back in office,

he ordered refugee admissions paused with limited case-by-case exceptions. If officials decide the mission is in the national interest. So according to the Migration Policy Institute, during Trump's first partial fiscal year back in office, the administration resettled 506 refugees, and nearly 70% of those were white South Africans. In fiscal year 2026, Reuters reported that by the end of April, the administration had admitted about 6,000 white South Africans and only three non-South African refugees. Now, it's unclear if those three non-South African refugees were a part of this same program, but those are the numbers that Reuters reported. The numbers obviously vary depending on the time period being measured, but the overall pattern here is the same. There has certainly been a priority placed on resettling white Afrikaners specifically.

However, at the same time, to say that the U.S. is only admitting white people is too broad of a statement because admission includes every type of immigration. and we're specifically talking about the refugee program here. Next one. Is the U.S. running out of oil? The short answer here is no. Now, there is a difference between having oil in the ground and having oil available right now in the form that people actually need it, right? The United States has a ton of oil reserves.

There's plenty of oil underground and, you know, that could be drilled. The U.S. is also one of the biggest oil producers in the world. So this isn't a situation where the United States is about to run. out of oil. At the same time, oil isn't immediately available to customers or consumers, right? It has to be drilled. It has to be transported. It has to be refined and that it has to be moved to wherever people need it. So when people talk about oil shortages, as they are right now, they're usually talking about a short-term supply issue, not the country running out of oil altogether. And this is where the Strategic Petroleum Reserve comes in. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is basically the government's

emergency oil stockpile. And since the start of the war in Iran, the government has been tapping into this stockpile to add oil to the market and try to ease some pressure on prices. In fact, in March, the Trump administration released 172 million barrels from the reserve for this reason. And these short-term issues can happen for a bunch of reasons. But obviously right now, we know that global supply is highly disrupted because of what's going on in the Middle East. And that's what's causing the short-term supply depletion at this moment. So, no, the United States is not running out of oil, but the government has been tapping into its emergency reserves to try to ease pressure on the market.

Next one. Did the Department of Defense remove a bunch of religions from its officially recognized list? Yes, but I do want to add some context here. What the Pentagon did was remove a lot of these specific religious affiliation options from the list used in military recognition. So before, service members could choose from more than 200 specific religious options. Now that list has been cut down to about 31. This doesn't mean that those religions are banned or that service members can't practice

those religions. It just means there are far fewer specific options to choose from when service members list their religious affiliation in military records. The Pentagon says the decision is not meant to be a judgment on whether any particular faith is legitimate. And they say the change was made to simplify the list and help chapter. planes get a broader picture of the religious makeup of their units. Critics, though, say the concern is that smaller or less common religious groups may now be harder to track because instead

of being counted separately, some service members could be grouped in broader categories. So the answer is yes, the Pentagon removed a lot of specific religions from its military record-keeping list, but it didn't ban those religions or stop service members from practicing them. For today's critical thinking question, I want you to think about presidential leverage. So if bill passes both chambers of Congress, especially with bipartisan support, is it appropriate for a president to delay signing it in order to pressure lawmakers to pass something else? And before you answer, I want you to flip the parties. Would you feel the same way of a president you supported, delayed a bill you liked, in order to push Congress toward a priority you also supported? And then would you feel the same way of a president you opposed delayed a bill you liked in order to push Congress towards a priority you strongly opposed? next question in your mind at what point does political strategy cross the line into an abuse of power

is it based on the tactic itself the policy goal how long the president delays whether the bill has bipartisan support or whether congress has a way around the president and applying that standard here do you think this crosses the line why or why not that's what i have for you today don't forget to leave me a five-star review on apple podcast or spotify i hope you have a great weekend thank you for being here as always, and I will talk to you on Monday. If you win a $3,000 a month payday for life, what would you feel free to do? Maybe take a long weekend, every weekend, or try a bunch of new hobbies? Would you feel free to upgrade and listen ad-free?

Don't worry, we get it. Every $20 ticket could win you $3,000 a month for life and supports life-saving cancer research at the Princess Margaret. Feel free to buy your payday for life ticket today. Raffle number 155-214. Please play responsibly.