UNBIASED - June 8, 2026: Trump's 'Meet the Press' Interview, Iran and Israel Exchange Fire, a Lawsuit Over the White House UFC Cage, a New EPA Rule to Phase Out Animal Testing, and More.

Episode Date: June 8, 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: DOJ Acknowledges In Court Filing Anti-Weaponization Fund Is Over. Here's What It Means For Future of Fund. (0:53) Lawsuit Filed Challenging UFC Cage on White House Lawn (5:21) EPA Takes New Step to Reduce Animal Testing (9:25) Trump's Latest Interview with NBC's 'Meet the Press.' Here's What Happened. (~15:16) Israel and Iran Exchange Fire For First Time Since April; Trump Acknowledges Heated Call with Netanyahu (~24:43) Quick Hitters (~29:29) Critical Thinking Segment (~33:35) ⁠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 Monday, June 8th. And today we're talking about a new development with the anti-weaponization fund, a lawsuit challenging the upcoming UFC fight on the White House lawn, new EPA steps meant to reduce animal testing, trumps meet the press interview, updates out of the Middle East, and more. But before we get into today's episode, I do just want to say thank you to each and every one of you who shared the show with someone last week and to everyone who took the time to message me with feedback. I really do appreciate constructive feedback because ultimately you are the reason that the show keeps going and the reason that the show has been

as successful as it has. So again, thank you for that feedback. Thank you for sharing the show. Let's start today's episode talking about the anti-weaponization fund. So remember a few episodes ago, we talked about this lawsuit challenging the legality of the fund. And in that lawsuit, the plaintiffs had asked for a temporary restraining order against the administration. If granted, a temporary restraining order would have prohibited the administration from moving forward with the fund while the litigation continued. But the judge didn't immediately rule on that request, right? Instead, what she said was, okay, we are going to set this for a hearing. But in the meantime, I'm going to go ahead and block the administration from taking any action on the

fund until I render my decision on that request for the temporary restraining order. So defendants, go ahead and file your response to the plaintiff's request for a TRO. Basically tell me why I shouldn't grant it and we will hold a briefing in about a week or so. Well, shortly after that judge's instruction, as we talked about in Thursday's episode, acting attorney general Todd Blanche testified before a House subcommittee. And during that testimony, he told lawmakers that the administration was not moving forward with the fund. I actually played a snippet of that testimony for you. Later on in that testimony, I didn't play this part, but later on in the testimony, Blanche was asked whether he would put it in writing that the fund was not moving forward.

And Blanche would not commit to that. But then two days later, on Friday, the DOJ responded to the plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order, per the judge's instructions, right? And in its response, the DOJ wrote, quote, this dispute concerns an anti-weaponization fund that had not been set up and is now not moving forward. As a result, plaintiff's claims are non-justicable. Non-justicable means the court can no longer legally hear in issue or a dispute. Later on in that filing, the DOJ writes, quote, The United States thus opposes plaintiff's request for relief on justicability and other grounds, not because the fund will continue. it will not, but to protect the government's institutional interests in the proper application of

Article III limitations on judicial review. And quote, so this is really the DOJ's first time putting in writing that the fund will not continue. And what the DOJ is basically saying here in this filing is because there was no fund when the lawsuit was filed, the plaintiff should have never been able to bring this lawsuit in the first place, but now because the fund is dead, this lawsuit should be thrown out. So what will happen now is the judge will hear both sides on Friday and determine whether to grant the plaintiff's TRO request despite the DOJ claiming that the fund is dead. She may also, you know, decide the issue is no longer justiccable as the DOJ argued and just tossed the case entirely.

If you're wondering why she wouldn't just toss the case now that the DOJ has said it won't be moving forward with the fund, the answer is actually pretty simple. The DOJ saying it's not moving forward isn't the same as the DOJ being legally unable to move forward, right? There's this legal doctrine called the voluntary cessation doctrine, which basically says that a defendant can't automatically defeat a lawsuit simply by saying, oh, don't worry, we've stopped doing the thing that got us here in the first place. Because in that case, the lawsuit could get dismissed based on what the defendant says. and then the defendant could just restart the thing that it stopped. So based on this doctrine, the judge will usually ask, you know, in this case specifically, the judge will probably ask, is this fund actually dead in a legally binding way? Or is the DOJ just saying it's not moving forward right now?

In other words, is there anything legally binding that prevents the defendant from starting it back up later? If there's no formal rescission, no binding written policy, no way, no guarantee that the administration won't bring it back later, the judge could decide this issue is still live and grant the plaintiff's request for a TRO to maintain the status quo while this lawsuit proceeds. And if we circle back to Blanche's testimony, the judge might even use the fact that, you know, Blanche wouldn't commit to putting the decision in writing as evidence that the administration is not 100% committed to totally scrapping it forever. So we'll have to see what happens at Friday's hearing, but the latest is that the DOJ has now written, you know, told the court in writing

that the fund will not be moving forward. Speaking of lawsuits, though, a new one is trying to stop the planned UFC fight card on the White House South Lawn. As we've talked about, there is a UFC fight plan to celebrate the country's 250th birthday. The fight is scheduled for June 14th, which is also President Trump's birthday. So a group called the Public Integrity Project filed this last lawsuit on behalf of two Virginia residents arguing three things. First, they argue that this event violates National Park Service rules governing certain federal park lands. They say the South Lawn National Mall Lincoln Memorial area involves federal park land and that National Park Service regulations prohibits sporting events on those lands. Now here's the thing. The the National Park Service

issued this temporary rule called the America 250 exempt. It was created specifically for events connected to the 250th celebration. But the plaintiffs are arguing that that rule, that exemption only applies to events that are planned, organized, and executed by federal agencies or the semi-quincentennial commission. And also that those events have to actually be for the celebration of America's 250th anniversary for that exemption to apply. This UFC fight, they say, does not qualify under this exemption because it's being planned and run by the UFC, which is a private party. And therefore, this is really a private commercial sporting event being put on for Trump's birthday, not a government run event being put on for America's 250th birthday.

And therefore, the America 250 exemption doesn't apply. And this UFC fight goes against NPS rules that prohibits sporting events on federal parklands. Second, they argue that the construction itself required congressional approval. Specifically, there's this portion of the U.S. Code that prohibits erecting a building or structure on federal public grounds in D.C. under NPS control unless Congress has expressly authorized it. They also say that that America 250 exemption we just talked about didn't override the congressional authorization requirement and legally couldn't override it because an agency rule can't trump a federal law. And then their third argument is brought under the National Environmental

Policy Act, which generally requires federal agencies to conduct environmental review before taking a major federal action that could significantly affect, you know, the human environment. But this part of the lawsuit is interesting because the plaintiffs make this argument in the alternative, meaning their main argument is that this is a private UFC event, so it doesn't qualify for that America 250 exemption and therefore violates NPS rules. But they say that if the government argues that this is a government-approved public-private America 250 event that is entitled to that America 250 exemption, then it actually looks much more like a major federal action, which would require this environmental review.

And that didn't happen here. So those are really the three arguments in this lawsuit or the three core arguments in this lawsuit. The plaintiff's attorneys also argue the event is quote-unquote deeply corrupt and have accused used Trump of benefiting from the event financially. The attorney cited reports that say President Trump bought up to $50,000 worth of TKO stock earlier this year. TKO is UFC's parent company. And for that reason, the attorney says this is a corrupt event. Now, the administration is pushing back on the lawsuit. An administration official called it, quote,

an obstructionist, baseless, and dilatory, end quote, attempt to prevent the president from, Quote, housing what will undoubtedly go down as one of the most historic sporting events in our nation's history during our semi-quincennial celebration. This iconic event is no different than the various other White House hosted events on the South Lawn and properly permitted events on the ellipse and national mall throughout the year. End quote. Now, in some totally unrelated news, the EPA announced new steps toward reducing and eventually eliminating animal testing in chemical and pesticide reviews. So more specifically, the EPA is updating its list of approved non-animal test methods for the first time since 2021 and creating a new process for scientists, companies, NGOs, and other outside groups to nominate additional alternatives for the EPA to consider. Now, these alternatives are typically called new approach methods or NAMs. And they include methods like human cell models, lab-based tissue tests, computer-based tools that are used to evaluate.

whether chemicals might pose health risks. So instead of testing whether a chemical or pesticide irritates an animal's eye in alternative method might use reconstructed human-like eye tissue in a lab. The EPA says this move is part of its broader goal of eliminating all mammalian animal testing by 2035. In fact, there is a bit of a political backstory here. So during the first Trump administration, the EPA set a goal of reducing mammalian animal testing by 30 percent by 2025. so last year and then eliminating it entirely by 2035. Under the Biden administration, the EPA dropped those specific phase out deadlines saying it wouldn't be bound by fixed timelines and would instead follow the best available science. So then the Trump administration is now, or Trump

came back into office and the current EPA is now reinstating that original 2035 goal and has announced this updated list of approved non-animal test methods in furtherance of that goal. In doing so, the agency argues that in many cases, newer non-animal methods can be faster, less expensive, more humane, and sometimes more relevant to human health than traditional animal studies because animals don't always respond to chemicals the same way humans do. The EPA says the newly approved alternative methods can be used in reviews under laws like the Toxic Substances Act, which governs many industrial. chemicals and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, which governs pesticides.

So when we talk about the practical effect of a move like this, basically it gives companies more options when they're trying to prove to the EPA that a chemical or pesticide is safe. So instead of relying only on animal studies, they might now be able to use some of these newer non-animal tests. But the EPA still has to decide whether that particular test makes sense for the specific chemical and the specific safety concern that they're looking at. Before this update, the list of approved alternative methods was shorter and included fewer non-animal options. So that's what the change is here. The EPA says it's already used some of these newer non-animal methods in recent

reviews, including last year and cancer evaluations for two fallates, which are chemicals used in certain plastics and consumer products. The agency said doing so spared an estimated 1,600 mice and rats from a lab testing. So supporters of the move argue that this could reduce animal suffering, speed up chemical reviews, and encourage the use of newer tools that may better reflect human biology. But the main question from a regulatory standpoint is implementation. So if the EPA is going to rely less on animal studies, then regulators have to have confidence that the replacement methods are reliable enough and can accurately identify whether a chemical is dangerous, right? especially when decisions involve cancer risk, reproductive harm, developmental effects,

long-term exposure, things like that. Okay, let's take a break here. When we come back, we'll talk about Trump's recent Meet the Press interview, a few updates out of the Middle East, and then we'll finish with quick hitters and critical thinking. If you are listening to this podcast, I'm willing to bet you are sick of the bias in the media. I mean, after all, that's why you're here, right? One of the many problems with modern mainstream media is that you will get an entirely different narrative depending on which outlet you tune into. And even worse, some news outlets don't even

report on stories if the story doesn't fit their narrative. But this is exactly why I've been using ground news for years. So thank you ground news for sponsoring this show. Ground news basically pulls together news from all around the world, different sources across all political spectrums. They're an app and website that shows you the source's political bias, how factual the sources are, and even who owns the source. Two things I really love about. are the bias distribution feature and the blind spot feature. The bias distribution feature shows you how many sources from the left, right, and center are reporting on a particular story, and the blind spot feature shows you what's not being reported by either side. By displaying

articles from all sides of the political spectrum, you can really see how the headlines differ, depending on who's doing the reporting. So, for example, in the last couple of weeks, a federal judge temporarily blocked Trump's anti-weaponization fund. And in reporting that story, a headline from the left read, quote, blatant abuse of power blocked as judge puts temporary halt on Trump's $1.8 billion slush fund, end quote. A headline on the right read, quote, Clinton appointed judge temporarily blocks Trump's $1.776 billion anti-weaponization fund. End quote. So the left-leaning headline refers to the fund as a blatant abuse of power and a slush fund, while the right leaning headline focuses on the fact that this was a Clinton appointed judge who made the decision.

It is really interesting to see these things side by side and ground news does such a good job. Highly, highly recommend checking out ground news. Only by using my link, you can get 40% off the unlimited access vantage plan. And let me just say the vantage plan is well worth it, especially at 40% off. Go to ground news.com slash UP, UP, as an unbiased politics. ground news.com slash up. Groundnews.com slash

up for 40% off the unlimited access vantage plan. Welcome back. President Trump sat for a new interview with NBC's Meet the Press and it led to quite a few headlines because the interview ended early after a few tense exchanges between Kristen Welker

and President Trump. I went ahead and listened to the whole interview so you didn't have to. I took some notes from the more notable moments. A lot of the interview focused on Iran, the anti-weaponization fund, and the economy. So we will touch on those highlights. Starting with Iran, Trump said that he didn't define what's happening there as a, quote-unquote, war. But when Welker pushed back and noted that there's currently a naval blockade in place, which is considered an act of war under international law, Trump told her,

quote, you can call it that if you'd like, end quote. And he actually later referred to what's going on in Iran as a war. He said the war will end one of two ways. Either there will be a peace agreement soon or it will end militarily. According to Trump, the U.S. is quote unquote very close to a deal. And he says Iran has conceded that it won't develop, purchase, or acquire nuclear weapons. He also said most of Iran's drone factories and missile manufacturing areas have been knocked out. But he did acknowledge there are or they do have some missiles and drones left. Percentage wise, he said, that maybe 21 or 22% of their missiles remain. As for what a potential deal could look like,

Trump said he would not unfreeze any Iranian assets or lift any sanctions up front. He said that that would have to come later as long as Iran behaved. Welker then asked if Trump wished that he had negotiated a better deal with Iran during his first term after he ended the Obama-era Iran deal so that Iran wouldn't have time. to rebuild its stockpile and Trump responded, quote, no, they weren't ready. This is much better. End quote. He was also asked whether a deal would include the release of Americans being held by Iran.

And he said, quote, well, we'll talk about it and we'll see. Nobody really has an accurate list of who they are, what they are, or if they're being held. But we've been talking about it. And quote. The interview then moved to Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu. Trump acknowledged that he and Netanyahu disagree on a few things. For example, he pointed to Lebanon and said he would like to see Lebanon have a better life and he would like to see more precise attacks on Hezbollah. But overall, he said he and Net and Yahoo are on the same page. Welker then brought up the fact that Trump had promised no new wars during his presidential campaign and that he held true to that promise during his first term. She said that promise is pretty fundamental to who he was as a candidate and as a first term president. so she asked him what change. And he responded, quote, I didn't guarantee no war.

Why would I have built the strongest military in the world? End quote. Now, what Trump said on the campaign trail, a few different times. So one of those instances, he said, quote, under Trump, we will have no more wars, no more disruptions, and we will have prosperity and peace for all. End quote. That was during an August 2024 rally in Pennsylvania. In his July 2024 address to the RNC, he said,

said, quote, with our victory in November, the years of war, weakness, and chaos will be over. I don't have wars. I had no wars other than ISIS, which I defeated, but that was a war that was started. We had no wars. I could stop wars with a telephone call, end quote. And then in November 2024, after he had won the election, he said in his victory speech, quote, we want a strong and powerful military and ideally we don't have to use it. You know, we had no wars. four years we had no wars except we defeated ISIS. They said he will start a war. I'm not going to start wars.

I'm going to stop wars. End quote. On the economy, Welker mentioned the latest jobs report, which stated employers added 172,000 jobs in May, roughly double expectations. And she said economists are saying it's possible the Fed may have to raise rates. Welker then asked Trump what his reaction would be. Trump responded, quote, we had a. great report. We're doing great. And it's unfair that whenever you do great, they want to raise

interest rates. It should be the opposite way. And quote, Trump praised his new Fed chair, Kevin Warsh, saying Warsh is great and he wants Warsh to do whatever he wants when it comes to rate decisions. On gas prices, Trump said they'll either go down once a peace agreement is signed or they'll go down once the U.S. is finished. Then the interview turned to the anti-weaponization fund. Trump defended the fund and said, quote, people have been destroyed by crooked politicians and should be reimbursed for that. And quote, when Welker asked whether the administration was completely done with the fund, Trump didn't directly answer. Instead, he said it would have to be approved by Congress. Welker then asked whether Trump thinks anyone who attacked police officers on January 6th should get

taxpayer money. Trump said, quote, I wouldn't be inclined to say so, but I have to see it. end quote. Now this is where the interview started to get contentious. I think at this point we're at the 37 minute mark. Trump said dirty cops and FBI agents led people into the Capitol on January 6th. Welker pushed back on this and said there was no evidence of that. Trump told her to look at the tapes. Welker then noted that 172 people pled guilty to assaulting a police officer, but Trump said they only pled guilty because they were told they would go to jail for 15 years if they didn't. Welker then again asked whether he would be okay with those people receiving tax dollars, taxpayer dollars. And Trump responded, quote, the people were destroyed by taxpayer dollars.

The people were destroyed by first cops and by weaponization. Many of those people should be compensated. And quote. And this is where the interview really became tense. So I'm just going to go ahead and play the last few minutes for you because the interview segued from talking about, you know, the anti-weaponization fund in January. six defendants to then getting into rigged elections and it just kind of went off the rails from there. So here are the last few minutes of that interview.

Now, I don't know what's going to happen with the weaponization front. I love the idea because people like you, the fake dirty press, the crooked press, people like stupid Biden, he's not smart enough to know what's going on, but people that surrounded him surrounded his beautiful, resolute desk in the Oval Office, what they did. to the lives of people. They destroyed people. They sent people to jail who did nothing wrong. Just to be very clear. There's no evidence of what you're saying. But let me ask you about Todd Blanche. Listen to me. Listen to me. Let's talk about Todd Blanche. This tremendous evidence is nothing but evidence. The election was rigged. It was a dirty election. And it's happening again right now in California.

It's happening right now in California. Right now it's looking, look at what's happening. evidence to that. It's four days. In California, it's, no, they're not there. They're dropping fast because it's a rigged election. Let me tell you. It's four days and they aren't even close to coming up with them. You know why they're doing that? Because they're cheating on the election. There's, what, do you have evidence to support that? All I have to do is look. All I have to do is look. And I listen to people and let's see what happens. But sir, that's not evidence. Do you think it's appropriate that they count the votes in California? Do you think it's appropriate that? they have an election and five days later they're nowhere close to pick you the one local officials acknowledge they are slow they're urging no they're crooked they're urging the votes to be counted quickly that's how they're crooked just like you're crooked your press is crooked and meet the press is crooked to be fair i'm not crooked but let's really when you play right into their hands in let's

continue you're either crooked or you're stupid let you play right into their hands with a strap you know that these elections are rigged your network knows that they're rigged you know you know I know that I won an election in a landslide and I got 94% bad press. But Mr. President, you know why I got that? Because you have no credibility. But you've never presented evidence that it was rigged. Let's keep talking about, I want to talk about Todd Lodge. You have more evidence.

There's more evidence than ever presented. Let's talk about- Your elections in this country, we're like a third world country. Your elections are crooked and you're crooked and Mr. Press is crooked. And so is ABC and CBS and CNN. And then, you're one-sided crooked networks. Let's call it quick because I've had it. Thank you, darling.

Have a good time. Mr. President, let's please, I traveled all the way to Wisconsin. I've sat in the rain with you. I know. I travel all the way to Wisconsin. On and off in the rain, and I've given you enough time. You want to straighten out your press because you know what? A country can never be great with a dishonest.

Listen, we traveled all the way to Wisconsin for the interview. Now, after the interview aired, Welker noted that she and Trump spoke after the taping, and Trump did agree to sit down with her for another meet the press interview, though it's unclear when that interview will be. Now for some updates out of the Middle East. So last week, Axios reported this very tense phone call between Trump and Netanyahu. The reporting said that Trump told Netanyahu, quote, what the fuck are you doing? You're fucking crazy.

you'd be in prison if it weren't for me. I'm saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this. End quote. And that phone call reportedly came after Netanyahu ordered the Israeli military to resume air strikes on Beirut's southern suburbs. Israel says the strikes are to target Hezbollah.

No critics say the strikes are too widespread. In fact, this goes back to what Trump was saying in that meet the press interview when he said he'd like to see more quote unquote surgical attacks. acts on Hezbollah. Following reports of that phone call, Trump did confirm on a podcast that the reporting was true, but he insisted that him and Prime Minister, he and Prime Minister Netanyahu have a good relationship and they work well together. He said, quote, I was a little bit perturbed at his constantly fighting with Lebanon, you know, at some point I said, Bibi, we got to stop this. But I have a very good relationship. We've done well together.

I like Bibi a lot and I've worked very well with him, end quote. So that. That was on Friday. Now, over the weekend, things kind of escalated between Israel, Iran, and Lebanon. So as we know, there has been a temporary ceasefire between Israel and Iran since April, April 7th, to be precise. One day after that, though, on April 8th, Israel struck Lebanon's capital, Baybrood. So immediately, Iran accused Israel of violating the ceasefire, but Israel said Lebanon wasn't included in that ceasefire agreement. so there was this big question of whether the ceasefire included Lebanon or whether it was just between Israel and Iran. Well, a week after that, Lebanon and Israel actually held their first direct diplomatic talks in decades in Washington, D.C. And three days later, a ceasefire was announced between Israel and Lebanon.

But Hezbollah played no part in that agreement. And Israel says the whole reason it's striking Lebanon is because of Hezbollah. So soon after the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, is announced, Israel and Hezbollah start fighting again, which means Israel and Lebanon are exchanging strikes, not the Lebanese government, but Hezbollah within Lebanon. On June 1st, Netanyahu says that Israel will strike Beirut again if Hezbollah doesn't stop its attacks. That same day, Trump says Israel and Hezbollah had agreed to calm the fighting. But then the very next day, Israel strikes Lebanon. The day after that, so the same thing,

Wednesday of last week, Israel and Lebanon agree to a new ceasefire and create these security zones that exclude Hezbollah. Hezbollah's leader rejects the ceasefire and says Israel has to withdraw from Lebanon completely, or else Hezbollah will strike Israel. Iran then steps in and says, if Israel does not withdraw, there will be, quote, no calm in the region, end quote. So then on Saturday, Israel strikes. southern Lebanon. Hezbollah fired back at Israel. Israel then struck Beirut's southern suburbs.

Iran then steps in and fired at Israel. And Israel fires back at Iran. And this was the first time Israel and Iran had exchanged fire since that April 7th ceasefire agreement was announced. President Trump steps in. He tells Israel and Iran to, quote, immediately stop shooting, end quote, at one another, he said both sides were seeking an immediate ceasefire. In an interview published Sunday, Trump said Netanyahu wouldn't have a choice but to accept an agreement between the U.S. and Iran because, quote, I call the shots, I call all the shots. He, Netanyahu, doesn't call the shots. End quote. That same day, Trump asked Netanyahu not to retaliate against Iran for the missile strikes, though, as we know, Israel did end up retaliating and striking Iran.

As of today, multiple Israeli media outlets quoted an anonymous official saying Israeli leaders had agreed to suspend attacks on Iran following an announcement by Iran's military command that it was halting its operations. But that is really official reportedly said that the operations against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon would continue. And then Iran said that even though it was halting its fire against Israel for now, if Israel continued to attack Lebanon, it would respond. So just a lot of back and forth, but that is the latest there. And now for some quick hitters, the Senate passed a roughly $70 billion immigration enforcement bill early Friday after an all-night voterrama. The bill funds ICE and Border Patrol through the end of Trump's term and was moved through budget reconciliation, meaning Republicans were able to pass it with a simple majority,

instead of needing 60 votes in the Senate. Democrats opposed it and tried to add amendments, including efforts to resurgence, including efforts to restrict or kill the anti-weaponization fund, but those did not succeed. Federal prosecutors say three U.S. citizens, two from California and one from Kansas, were arrested in charge with conspiring to provide material support to ISIS. According to the DOJ, the men allegedly sent more than $2,000 to someone they believed was connected to ISIS and discussed using cryptocurrency to buy drones and rocket-propelled grenades for attacks on U.S. service members overseas.

The charges are simply allegations at this stage. No one has officially been convicted. The defendants would face up to 20 years in prison if convicted. The DOJ says it has filed civil denaturalization cases against 17 naturalized U.S. citizens accused of illegally obtaining citizenship or hiding material information during the naturalization process. The DOJ says the cases involve people accused or convicted of serious officials. including sexual abuse of minors, fraud, drug-related crimes, identity fraud, and immigration fraud. If a federal court agrees with the DOJ, the individuals could lose their U.S. citizenship and have their

certificates of naturalization canceled. In the L.A. mayoral race, Nithia Rahman pulled ahead of Spencer Pratt in the race for the second spot in the November election. Raman, a city council member, won about 40 percent of the nearly 48,000 votes. LA County reported Sunday. She won 10,000 votes more than Pratt, which left her about 3,000 votes ahead. At this point, no one's really projecting who will run against Mayor Bass in the November election because it is such a narrow margin still and votes in California are still being counted. And speaking of L.A., jury selection is underway for Jonathan Rindernecht, the man accused of starting the smaller fire that prosecutors say eventually became the deadly palisades fire. Prosecutors say he started the smaller fire on January 1st, 2025, which allegedly continued burning underground before reigniting days later and spreading through the Pacific Palisades and Malibu.

Rindernacht has pleaded not guilty, and his defense argues that he is being blamed for a fire that they say officials failed to fully extinguish. A stabbing at New York City's Penn Station left six people injured Sunday night with injuries ranging from minor to serious. fortunately none of the injuries are life-threatening. Authority said a suspect was taken into custody, who they say might be homeless, but they have not yet released details about a motive or whether the victims were targeted. There are now four confirmed New World Screwworm cases in Texas after the USDA reported two more infections, one in a calf in LaSalle County and another in a dog in Andrews County hundreds of miles apart. The screw worm fly, which can infest wounds in livestock,

Pets, wildlife, and rarely people had been eliminated in the United States in the 60s, but it has recently been moving north from Mexico. Texas officials and ranchers are raising concerns about the USDA's response, saying the federal response has been too slow, while the USDA says it's using quarantine, surveillance, border controls, and sterile fly releases to try to contain the spread. ICE is ending a Biden-era policy that required the agency to report the deaths of former detainees who died within 30 days of being released from federal custody. The DHS says ICE is not responsible for people once they're no longer in custody. But critics argue the change reduces transparency, especially in cases where a person may

have been seriously ill while detained. Okay, for today's critical thinking segment, I want you to think about what causes us to see something as justice when it comes from our side, but revenge when it comes from the other side. And the anti-weaponization fund is what got me thinking about this, but I think it applies to various things in politics because nowadays we see this all the time in politics. When someone we support goes after someone we believed did something wrong, we're more likely to see it as accountability. But when the other side does something similar, we're more likely to see it as retaliation or weaponization. If our side does it, we assume good intent, right?

But if the other side does it, we assume bad intent. For example, under the Biden administration, the DOJ process, Trump in the cases involving election interference and the alleged mishandling of classified documents. The Biden, DOJ and many Democrats, framed those cases as accountability. Trump allegedly broke the law, so he had to be investigated like anyone else. But Trump and many Republicans argued that the prosecutions were politically motivated because Biden's DOJ was prosecuting Biden's likely 2024 opponent. Then when Trump returned to office, his administration started reviewing and investigating

some of the people either involved in or connected to the prior investigations into him and his allies. Supporters saw that as accountability for what they saw as Biden-era weaponization, but critics saw it as revenge against Trump's political enemies. So it all goes back to this idea that when it's on our side, we see it as justice and as accountability. When it's on, you know, the other side and someone's coming for someone on our side, we're more likely to see it as revenge or retaliation or weaponization, whatever you want to call it. So the question is, how do we separate the action from the actor? How do we know whether something is actually about justice

or whether we're just more willing to call it justice when it benefits our side? And why are we more willing to consider something justice only when it's coming from our side? That's what I have for you. I hope you enjoyed this episode. As always, have a fantastic next couple of days. and I will talk to you again on Thursday.