UNBIASED - June 4, 2026: Anti-Weaponization Fund Is Over, War Powers Resolution Passes House, Controversy at CBS News Explained, What the FY2027 NDAA Means for the U.S.-Israel Relationship, and More

Episode Date: June 4, 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: Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche Confirms End of Anti-Weaponization Fund (2:23) House Passes War Powers Resolution. Here's What It Means. (9:28) Controversy at CBS News Explained (~16:28) Quick Hitters (~23:55) Rumor Has It: What the FY2027 NDAA Means for the U.S.-Israel Relationship (~30:02) Critical Thinking Segment (~39:40) ⁠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 4th. And we are talking about the Trump administration dropping the anti-weaponization fund, the war powers resolution that just passed the House and what that means, the controversy currently going on at CBS, the National Defense Authorization Act and what it means for the United States and Israel, and much more. Before we get into all of that, though. I do have a favor to ask. I'm going to get a little vulnerable for a minute. So ever since going on maternity leave, my podcast numbers just haven't been what they were before. And I know that's to be expected. I know that when you step away from reporting on the news for a

couple of months, you naturally, you know, fall off people's radar a bit. But I would be lying if I said I wasn't feeling a little discouraged because truly all I want is, for as many people as possible to have access to unbiased news. I just know how much more informed we could all be if more people had a place to go for nonpartisan fact-based information. And that's the whole reason that I do this, obviously. So the favor I want to ask of you is, if you love and appreciate this show and you feel more informed because of this show, could you please share the show with just one person today. It could be a friend, a family member, a co-worker, whoever you feel comfortable sharing with. If you could share with just one person, I would so appreciate that.

Obviously, more than one would be incredible, but just one person would be so appreciated. Word of mouth is one of the biggest ways that this show grows and every share helps just, you know, obviously get this show in front of more people. And yeah, I would just really, really, really appreciate it. So as always, thank you so much for listening. Thank you for being here. Thank you for helping me spread the mission of unbiased news. I truly value each and every one of you more than I will ever be able to put into words.

Okay, so vulnerable moment. We're going to put that aside and we're going to get into the news. We're going to talk about the anti-weaponization fund. What a transition that was. Okay, per usual, let's get everyone caught up to speed here. back in February, President Trump, his two sons and the Trump organization sued the DOJ and IRS for $10 billion over their leaked tax records. We have talked about this many, many times at this point. There were some questions while that litigation was going on when it was filed throughout the litigation process, whether that suit had any merit, considering Trump oversaw the very organizations that he was suing.

But the case ultimately ended in a settlement. And as part of that settlement, the DOJ and IRS agreed to a few things. First, they agreed to set up this $1.776 billion anti-weaponization fund. President Trump and his sons would give up any financial benefit, and the administration would create this fund that would compensate people for weaponization and lawfare by the federal government. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testified that the fund would be nonpartisan in the sense that anyone could apply, so it didn't matter if you were a victim of a Democratic or

or Republican administration, everyone was entitled to submit a claim. But immediately, people raised concerns about the fund. People raised concerns that January 6th defendants could become beneficiaries of the fund. This was an issue that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle raised during Blanche's testimony. There were concerns about whether the actual funding, so the money was going to come from the judgment fund, which is part of the Treasury. There were concerns about the legality of that. there were concerns about whether there would be any bias in who would be compensated, depending on whether the claim came from someone claiming they were affected by the Biden administration versus the Trump administration.

So right from the get-go, this fund was facing criticism from both sides. Then the following day after this anti-weaponization fund is announced, the DOJ releases an addendum that essentially says, as part of this settlement, we are also waiving the federal government's right to go after the plaintiffs, their relatives, associates, businesses for any claims that the government could have brought up until the date of this settlement. Whether those claims are known or unknown at this point, doesn't matter, waiving our right to go after those potential claims. That also raised some concerns. So between, you know, both parts of this settlement, multiple lawsuits were filed challenging its legality. One of the

lawsuits, which we talked about in the last podcast episode, went before a judge. And a judge said, okay, listen, while I consider this request for a temporary restraining order from the plaintiffs, I'm going to block the operations of the fund, essentially preserving the status quo. No money could go out of the fund. No money could be transferred into the fund. No claims could be reviewed. It was just completely on pause. After that ruling, the DOJ issued a statement that said despite disagreeing with the judge's decision, the department would abide by it. And then reports started coming out about the administration potentially backing down from the fund. And at first, it wasn't totally clear whether that meant the fund was, you know,

officially and completely dead or it was just being paused in accordance with that, with that court ruling. But people familiar with the situation inside the administration were saying that it was likely getting scrapped. Apparently, what happened is President Trump had met with Speaker Johnson. And after that meeting, that's when people on the inside started saying this fund was being nixed. And if you're wondering why a meeting with Speaker Johnson would have triggered this, it's because the anti-weaponization fund was becoming an issue for Republicans in Congress.

And GOP lawmakers had started pushing back on it. I'll explain. So Congress is currently trying to move forward with this roughly $70 billion immigration enforcement package through what's called reconciliation. Reconciliation is the budget process that allows certain spending and tax-related bills to pass the Senate with just a simple majority. Typically, in the Senate, you need 60 votes to get past a procedural vote, but when you go through reconciliation, you only need a simple majority. However, because the margins are tight in the Senate, Republicans basically need all of their own members on board to pass it. And in this,

case, you had some GOP lawmakers that didn't like the fund. They weren't necessarily on board with the fund. And they were saying, listen, we're not going to move forward on this immigration enforcement package until we get a clear answer on whether this fund will be scrapped. And this seems to be what ultimately fueled the decision to back away from the fund. On Tuesday, acting attorney General Blanche testified before a House subcommittee. This was his interaction with Representative Meng. And this is where we're getting the confirmation that the anti-weaponization fund is no longer. Mr. Attorney General, I wanted to ask a few questions about the anti-weaponization fund. We know that the department has agreed to pause this effort until at least June 12th.

I wanted to ask what your plans were for the fund after June 12th. So thank you. So look, we're not moving forward with the fund. You're right that there's a date that in the case in the eastern Virginia in June, but we are not moving forward with the fund, period. We, the reasons for the fund is something that President Trump talked about for a long time, which is the fact that there were a lot of people in this country who had their government weaponized against them. The reasons for the fund, I think, remain as important as they were before,

but we are not moving forward with the fund. Not moving forward ever. Correct. Oh, there's no more fund then. Well, to the extent there was a fund. Remember, the fund wasn't set up yet. There were no commissioners named. There was no claimants brought anything in front of,

there was no claims made yet. So yes, we're not moving forward with the fund. So that's what Blanche said during his testimony. In the hours after that testimony, CNN's Caitlin Collins asked President Trump whether the fund was fully dead or just on hold. Trump replied, quote, I'd have to ask the lawyers, I don't know. As far as I'm concerned, it was a beautiful thing. And quote.

Now, as for the second part of the settlement, that attorney general order barring future prosecutions, investigations, et cetera, for past acts, that is still in effect, at least for now, right? So Blanche was clear during his testimony that the only thing the DOJ is not moving forward at this point in time is that anti-weaponization fund. The reason I say that that part of the settlement is in effect at least for now is because there is ongoing litigation challenging the legality of that order. So we will have to see what happens with that. But at this point, the DOJ still considers that order to be in effect and binding.

It is just the anti-weaponization part of the settlement that they are backing away from. Moving on. Last night, the House voted 215 to 208 to approve a war power's resolution. aimed at stopping President Trump from continuing military action against Iran unless Congress formally authorizes it. Every Democrat and four Republicans voted in support of this resolution. Now, I know a lot of people are wondering what this even means. So that's what we're going to focus on. A war powers resolution is a measure Congress can use to try to either limit or end or force debate over U.S. military involvement.

in a conflict. It comes from the war powers resolution of 1973. Congress passed that war powers resolution back in 1973 after the Vietnam War to try to reassert its role in decisions about the war. Because here's the thing. Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to declare war. Congress has a sole power to declare war. However, the president is commander in chief under Article 2. So there's always been tension over who gets to decide when and how the United States initiates or takes part in conflict. And that's why we're always going back to to this constitutional conflict whenever we talk about the president striking another country without congressional authorization. Was that legal? Was it not? This is where the conflict stems from. But the war powers resolution was Congress's

attempt to kind of draw a line. It basically says that if the president sends U.S. forces into hostilities or into a situation where hostilities are imminent. The president has to notify Congress. Then, unless Congress authorizes the military action, the president is generally supposed to withdraw U.S. forces within 60 days with a possible 30-day extension for that withdrawal. Now, whether presidents have abided by this in the past is a whole different story. No president really abides by this. But when lawmakers introduce a war powers resolution, as they did here, they're usually saying, hey, like, we think the president is using military force without proper congressional authorization. And we want Congress to formally weigh in on the situation. So in this case,

the resolution would direct Trump to remove U.S. forces from hostilities against Iran unless Congress either declares war or specifically authorizes the use of force. Now, that doesn't mean this House vote ends the war, okay? It doesn't. For this to actually become binding, it would still need to pass the Senate. And even then, the president could veto it, right? This is like regular legislation. It has to pass both chambers.

It has to get the president's signature. Now, is the president likely going to sign a measure that restricts his power? Probably not. hasn't happened in the past. So Congress would need to have enough votes to override that veto if they actually wanted this measure to be binding. Practically speaking, a war power resolution can be an effective measure, but it's mostly symbolic, really. Unless, of course, it makes it through the full process, then it could have legal effect and it could require the president to withdraw troops. But again, like I said, it has to pass both chambers. If it doesn't get the president's signature,

then it has to have enough votes to override that veto. Only then would it have legal effect. The reason this is significant, though, is because the House has held three-floor votes on Iran-related war powers resolutions this year. And this was the first one to pass. The March vote failed by a 212 to 219 vote. The April vote failed by a 214 to 213 vote. And then, of course, this most recent one last night passed in a 215 to 208 vote.

So the margins kept getting closer and closer with each vote until it ultimately passed. And what that says is opposition among lawmakers has grown. So from here, the resolution goes to the Senate. The Senate has actually already advanced a similar measure procedurally, but hasn't taken a final vote on it. So it'll go to the Senate if the Senate doesn't pass it. That's it. It doesn't go anywhere. If the Senate does pass it, it goes to the president.

As I said, Trump would likely oppose it as he has. has in the past. There were two similar war resolutions. I believe one was in 2019 and the other was in 2020. Trump opposed both of those. And then, you know, if it doesn't get the president's signature, then of course, as we said, Congress has to decide whether it has enough votes to override a veto. Based on the current vote margins, though, that does not seem likely because those margins are so slim, you need two thirds of both the House and the Senate to override a veto. Let's take our first break here. When we come back, we still have a lot more to get to. Welcome back. All right, what is going on at CBS News? It seems like the firing of Scott Pelly is what really brought this

story back into the headlines, but the tensions have actually been brewing for more than a year. So let's talk about this. To fully understand the current situation, we do have to go back to 2024. During the presidential campaign, CBS aired a 60 Minutes interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris. You probably remember this. President Trump leader sued CBS and its parent company Paramount over that interview. And he argued that CBS deceptively edited the interview in a way that painted Harris in a more favorable light. Well, Paramount ended up agreeing to settle that lawsuit for $16 million in July 2025. The settlement money would go toward Trump's future presidential a library. But the timing of that settlement is part of why this became controversial, because at the

same time, Paramount was trying to complete an $8 billion merger with Skydance Media. And because CBS owns broadcast licenses, the deal needed FCC approval. So later that month in July 2025, same month that Paramount settled the lawsuit, the FCC approved the merger. And as part of that process, Skydance committed to certain changes at CBS. Some of those changes included appointing in Ombudsman to review complaints of editorial bias for at least two years, also doing away with any company DEI initiatives. So supporters of this change felt that the changes were part of this bigger effort to rebuild trust in CBS News and make the network more balanced. But critics, including people inside CBS saw this settlement and subsequent merger-related promises

as a sign that Paramount was trying to appease Trump or the Trump administration to get this merger deal done. Now, Paramount and CBS have disputed that. They've disputed the idea that its journalism was compromised, but internally, this was a source of tension. So then in April 2025, longtime 60 Minutes executive producer Bill Owens left the show. He said it had become clear that he would not be allowed to run the show the way that he always had. A month later, CBS News president and CEO Wendy McMahon also stepped down.

She cited challenges during the few months prior. So clearly there's some internal tension happening. The Paramount Skydance merger officially closed three months later in August 2025. And at this point, David Ellison, the son of Oracle founder Larry Ellison, became chairman and CEO of the newly merged company. A couple of months later in October, Paramount announced it was acquiring the free press, the media company founded by Barry Weiss. It then named Weiss editor-in-chief of CBS News. This move was also controversial. Supporters felt that Weiss was someone who could help broaden CBS's news perspective and CBS's audience,

but critics had concerns about whether she was the right person to run a legacy broadcast news division, because her background is mostly in opinion journalism and digital media, not traditional news management. And Weiss, for those of you who aren't familiar with her story, she worked at the New York Times back in 2020. She was a journalist for the New York Times. She ended up resigning during the pandemic and she wrote this resignation letter that ended up going viral on X, basically saying that the New York Times had become too narrow in the range of viewpoints that it was tolerating and that she was bullied by her colleagues over the topics that she wanted to write about and the opinions that she had. So she left the New York Times and she started the free press. And the free press is this

independent news site that has commentary from writers on all sides of the political spectrum. The whole idea was that you shouldn't be discriminated against or judge based on viewpoint. But again, mainly opinion and commentary, very different than traditional news, right? So Barry Wise comes in as editor-in-chief. And after this, the CBS headlines kind of died down a bit. It wasn't in the news as much as it was previously. But then, a couple of weeks ago, CBS appointed Nick Bilton as the new executive producer of 60 Minutes. Bilton is a journalist, author, and filmmaker, but not a traditional broadcast news executive. Not everyone on the inside at CBS liked this move. People on the inside were clashing with leadership, at least three senior staff either left or were fired. But then,

Tuesday, the tension kind of came to a head during a staff meeting. This staff meeting was held after Bilton was appointed so that everyone could get together, talk, and get on the same page. But during that meeting, Scott Pelly, one of the most recognizable journalists at 60 Minutes and longtime CBS correspondent reportedly got into it with Bilton. Soon after that, Pelley was fired. The next day, Pelley issued a statement that reads in part, quote, last month, 60 Minutes lost its DNA when our entire senior leadership and two of our best on-air correspondents were cruelly fired without cause. Good people were silenced because they stood up for our audience. They stood for fairness against the forces of political bias. They stood for professionalism against chaos. For my part,

new management has instructed me to inject falsehoods and bias into a politically sensitive story. I've been told to include assertions that are unverified. To date, in every case, I have managed to ignore these instructions or refuse them. Recently, politicians have been invited to choose correspondence for interviews on the broadcast. Giving politicians control over 60 minutes interviews is not how this is done. Finally, incompetence and unprofessionalism in the new management have wreaked havoc. At 60 minutes, we have fought harder than anyone knows to save the program that became an American icon. We owed that to our millions of viewers.

I depart after 37 years at CBS with one emotion, a heart brimming with gratitude. end quote. The next day, Barry Weiss told CBS News employees at a staff meeting, in part, quote, I hope I speak, I know I speak for myself and I hope I speak for everyone here when I say that I'm only interested in working in a newsroom that is built on trust and mutual respect. We cannot do our work without it. That foundation was broken on Monday. And despite our attempts to engage with Scott Pelly and to find a way back, unfortunately, we weren't able to do so. And so we had to part ways. We did not want to. that to happen, but that's the path he chose." And quote, Pelly then issued another statement pushing back on Weiss's comments. He wrote in part, quote, I'm saddened to see the transcript of the CBS News Morning

editorial meeting. Barry Weiss knows what she said is not true. In the meeting on Tuesday, in which I was effectively fired, there was no effort of any kind to, quote, find a way back, as Weiss said in the editorial meeting. At no point did anyone in the Tuesday meeting suggest that there could be steps taken by either side that would lead to a resolution. End quote. So that is the latest with the CBS news situation. This is something that has been ongoing for more than a year. But like I said, when I opened this story, the firing of Scott Pelley is what has really thrust this situation back into the headlines.

Let's do some quick hitters. Early results are coming in from California's primary. Right now, Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Bacera are leading the race for governor. In L.A., Mayor Karen Bass is projected to move on to a runoff. Spencer Pratt and Nithia Ramon are competing for that second spot, though Pratt is currently ahead. And remember, California uses a top two primary system, and they do keep counting mail ballots after Election Day, so long as those ballots are postmarked by Election Day, so final results could take a few days, even weeks. SpaceX just laid out plans for an IPO. The company is looking to

raised $75 billion, which would value SpaceX at around $1.77 trillion. If that happens, it would be one of the biggest IPOs ever. Shares are expected to be priced at $135 each, and the company would trade on NASDAQ under the ticker SPCX. President Trump suggested that the temporary UFC arena being built on the White House South Lawn could potentially remain in place permanently. This arena is the one being built for that June 14th UFC fight in celebration of America's 250th birthday. And in a TikTok video captioned, quote, maybe we'll never take it down, end quote, Trump compared it to the Eiffel Tower, saying that was also supposed to be temporary, but people liked it, so they kept it.

Two NIH-linked researchers are facing federal charges after prosecutors say they tried to bring undeclared biological materials into the United States after traveling from the Republic of Congo. investigators say some of the materials included vials of deactivated mpox, formerly known as monkeypox. To be clear, these were reportedly not live infectious samples. However, prosecutors say the researchers did not properly declare the materials and allegedly misled federal officials about what they were carrying when they were asked. President Trump is expected to nominate Todd Blanche to serve as Attorney General on a permanent basis after Blanche has spent about two months leading the Justice Department. in an acting role. Blanche previously served as Trump's personal attorney before joining the administration as deputy attorney general and then later becoming acting attorney general after Pam Bondi left the role.

If formally nominated, Blanche would still need to be confirmed by the Senate before taking over the role permanently. Senate Republicans moved forward with that roughly $70 billion immigration enforcement package that we talked about earlier in the episode very briefly. They did this through the budget reconciliation process. The bill would send funding to ICE and Border Patrol. However, before a final vote, senators do have to go through what's known as a voterrama, which is basically a rapid fire amendment process where lawmakers can force votes on a variety of proposed changes. A new Gallup poll found that 65% of U.S. adults say same-sex marriage should be legal. This is down from 71% in 2022 and 2023.

The decline is largely driven by Republicans, with 37% of Republicans now saying same-sex marriage should be legally valid. Support among Democrats and independence has remained stable. Gallup also found that 62% of Americans view gay and lesbian relationships as morally acceptable, which is the lowest level on that question since 2016. And former Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton. Bolton has reportedly agreed to plead guilty to one count of retaining classified national security information as part of a plea deal with the DOJ. The broader case originally included 18 counts

related to allegations that Bolton kept or shared classified notes while working on a memoir, but under the deal, he is, like I said, pleading guilty to just one count. Under the deal, prosecutors are expected to recommend a fine of more than $2 million, though sentencing will ultimately be up to a judge. Bolton is scheduled to. appear in court on July 26th to enter the plea. Let's take our second and final break here when we come back. We'll finish with rumor has it and critical thinking. Welcome back. It is time for rumor has it, my weekly segment where I either confirmed dispel or add context to recent viral posts or claims sent in by all of you. First one, rumor has it that Congress is about to

permanently merge the United States military with Israel. This one stems from a viral social media post that has 1.8 million views and 148,000 likes. So let's get into it. For usual, I will play the video stopping every so often to address each claim of fact. I do not address commentary. Let's add some much needed context before we play the video, though. What this video is referring to is the National Defense Authorization Act. It is passed every year to set U.S. military policy and authorized defense programs and spending levels. Almost every year, there is something controversial in In fiscal year 2025, it was the controversy surrounding a restriction on tri-care coverage for certain gender transition care for minors. And in the fiscal year 2024 measure, it was the temporary

extension of Section 702 of FISA, which is a controversial surveillance law. This year, the controversy is Section 224. Section 224 would require the Secretary of Defense to appoint an executive agent, basically a single official, to coordinate defense technology. cooperation between the United States and Israel. The work could cover joint R&D, shared weapons production, potential cooperation on areas like network integration and data fusion. The initiative would be called the United States Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative. If I were to sum up Section 224 in one sentence, it would be this. Section 224 would deepen and formalize U.S. Israel Defense Technology Cooperation. Now, to understand why people are talking about

this, there are two layers of context. First, the United States and Israel already have a very deep military relationship. Since 2008, U.S. law has required the United States to help preserve Israel's quote, qualitative military edge, end quote, which basically means United States policy is to help ensure that Israel keeps a military advantage over potential rivals in the region, not necessarily by having the biggest military, but by having more advanced capabilities. On top of that, under a 10-year agreement signed during the Obama administration, the United States provides Israel with about $3.8 billion per year in military assistance. That agreement runs through 2028. Second, this is obviously happening at a time when Israel's military actions in the Middle East are being scrutinized.

So that, for those two reasons, Section 224 is getting highlighted. But let's play the video and review the claims one by one. Congress is about to merge the U.S. military with Israel permanently and they hit it inside of a 3,000 page bill. is exactly what section 224 of the 2027 NDAA does. It creates something called the US-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative and what a f***ing mouthful that is. One, it forces our generals to give Israel our most advanced military secrets, AI, cyber, biotech, all of it. Okay, we're going to go ahead and rate this claim as mostly false based on the text of the bill. Section 224 does mention cooperation in advanced areas like AI, quantum, machine learning, autonomous systems,

cyber defense, biotech, biomanufacturing, medical defense. But saying that this bill forces U.S. generals to give Israel America's most advanced military secrets is not supported by the text of the bill. Yes, the bill says that the Pentagon has to coordinate cooperative efforts between the United States and Israel. But it also specifically says that collaborative research has to be done in a way that protects sensitive technology and information, protects the national security interests of both countries. It has to be within existing safeguards and it has to follow existing laws.

So there's no language to suggest that this bill overrides classification rules, foreign disclosure rules, export controls, any of that. Any actual sharing of classified or controlled technology would still have to go through the proper legal and national security review process. Two, it literally says the two militaries will share data fusion and network integration. That means your tax dollars will power a single, unified, War machine. Partially true, but exaggerated. What the bill literally says is, quote, the synchronized cooperation efforts may be carried out through the following domains. And quote, it then lists 10 domains, one of those being network integration, data fusion, and contested logistics. So yes, data fusion and

network integration are actually in the bill, but these are listed as possible areas of cooperation. It doesn't automatically merge the United States and Israeli militaries. It's not creating one combined command structure or one quote unquote unified war machine. Also, data fusion and network integration can mean a lot of things when it comes to defense technology. It could mean making systems more interoperable. It could mean coordinating missile defense. It could mean sharing certain sensor data. It could mean developing compatible platforms. But it doesn't by itself mean the United States and Israel would become a single unified war machine. Now, yes, If the United States funds this cooperation, U.S. taxpayer dollars are involved, just like taxpayer dollars are already involved in military aid and weapons transfers to Israel, Ukraine, etc.

But that's different from saying the bill creates a single unified war machine. That conclusion just simply goes beyond what the text itself appears to require. Three, Israel gets to build factories on U.S. soil so that members of Congress cannot vote to cut them off without losing jobs in their own district. The bill does allow for frameworks like joint ventures, licensing agreements, U.S.-based co-production, co-manufacturing partnerships with Israel. That part is true. But saying Congress, quote, cannot cut them off without losing their jobs. That's not legally or objectively true.

Congress can still vote to restrict limit or cut funding. Nothing in Section 224 explicitly takes that power away. Explicit, nothing. It doesn't take that power away. That said, the political argument behind what. she's saying is fair. Why is it fair? Because the dynamic already exists. When defense manufacturing is tied to jobs here in the United States, lawmakers just become more reluctant to cut funding because it could affect workers or companies in their districts. It's also worth pointing out that these joint

ventures with Israel are already happening. For example, U.S. defense contractor Raytheon, now part of RTF, and Israeli defense company Raphael have a joint venture connected to Iron Dome. In 2023, RTX announced plans for a $33 million production facility in East Camden, Arkansas to make missiles for Israel's Iron Dome system and the U.S. version of that interceptor called Skyhunter. In 2025, the joint venture reportedly secured a $1.25 billion contract to supply Israel with iron dome missiles, missile kits, and test equipment. So instead of all that production happening in Israel, some of that missile production happens at this facility in Arkansas. Now, a more accurate way to say what she's trying to say is section 224,

could expand upon the U.S. Israel defense co-production that already exists, which can make programs harder to cut. Why should I care? Well, it's not really about defense, is it? It's about making the relationship impossible to break. Former State Department officials are warning that this bill is designed to entrench Israel so deep into America's supply chains that we lose our ability to say no. So here she's quoting Josh Paul, a former U.S. Department of State official and, uh,

founder of the advocacy group, a new policy. He said, quote, what Congress is trying to do now is find different ways of entrenching the relationship so deep in America's own defense industrial base that it's impossible to root out. And quote. And the rest of the video is commentary, so we'll leave it at that. Now, let's talk about where the bill stands. Right now, section 224 is not law. Okay. It's part of the House Armed Services Committee's version of the NDAA. or more specifically the committee's draft of the bill. The committee is expected to take it up in early June, so should be soon here. It'll have to pass the committee first.

Members in the committee can offer amendments, try to change or remove certain provisions, including Section 224. In fact, Representative Rokana said that he's going to be offering an amendment to strip Section 224 from the bill. So that has to happen in the committee. when and if it passes out of the committee, it would go to the full House. If it passes the House, then it goes to the Senate. The Senate has its own NDAA process and the House and Senate would eventually have to reconcile their versions.

That means Section 224 could stay in, could be changed, could be removed, all before the final bill gets to the president's desk. It's also important to remember the NDAA is an authorization bill. What that means is it sets defense policy and it authorizes programs and spending levels. but the actual money for those programs, the actual appropriations, still has to go through the appropriations process in Congress. Now, as far as the likelihood of this specific section becoming law, that's not totally clear right now. The NDAA itself is considered must pass legislation, meaning it passes every year. But individual provisions inside the NDAA don't always survive.

This provision does seem to have at least some bipartisan support at the committee. level, but again, it could still face amendments, pushback, or changes as it moves forward in the process. Okay, for today's critical thinking segment, we are sticking with this United States Israel Cooperation Initiative. First, I want you to come up with at least one pro and one con or one benefit and one risk, however you want to think about it, of the United States helping key allies maintain a military advantage over their regional rivals. One pro, one con, one benefit, one risk. Now that's the easier one, okay? This next one's a little longer. In your mind, at what point does supporting an ally become entanglement in that allies' conflicts?

Most people would probably agree that allies are important, right? The United States benefits from having allies around the world, especially in these unstable regions like the Middle East. But ask yourself, where is the line? When does supporting an ally become entanglement in that allies conflicts? Is it military aid? Is it weapons sales? Is it intelligence sharing? Is it joint weapons production? Is it something else? At what point does the United States stop simply supporting an ally and start becoming tied to that ally's decisions? Then ask yourself, does your answer change depending on the ally? Would your line be the same for Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, or even NATO, countries and why or why not. That is what I have for you today. Don't forget to share the show

with someone you know. Have a fantastic weekend and I will talk to you on Monday.