UNBIASED - May 11, 2026: Hantavirus Update Now That Americans Are Home, the Redistricting Fights in Virginia and Tennessee, Newly Released UFO Files, and More.

Episode Date: May 11, 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: State Department To Start Revoking Passports From Those Who Owe Child Support (0:11) Redistricting Fights in Tennessee and Virginia Explained (4:17) Trump Administration Releases Never-Before-Seen UFO Files (~18:24) Hantavirus Update Now That Everyone Is Off The Ship and Americans Are Back Home (~25:11) Quick Hitters (~28:44) Critical Thinking Segment (~31:34) ⁠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, May 11th. Let's talk about some news. We're just going to get right into it. Starting with some news from the end of last week. This is kind of a short story, but I did want to address it because the headline was a little eye-catching, but I actually learned something new in researching this story. So at the end of last week, the State Department announced that it will start revoking the passports of individuals who owe basically more than $2,500 of court-ordered child support. And if you're anything like me, you might have seen this headline and thought that this was something new, but it's actually not. So this has been the law since 1996. And the reason that it's making news now is because it seems the Trump administration is going to, to be enforcing the law a bit more vigorously than it was previously enforced by actively

revoking passports. So historically, the program really affected people when they applied for a passport or were renewing a passport, not necessarily the people that already had existing passports. So in a press release, the department wrote in part, quote, U.S. law requires Americans to comply with child support obligations in order to receive a U.S. passport and allows the Department of State to revoke the passport of an individual who owes more than $2,500 in child support. Under the Trump administration, the Department of State is coordinating with the Department of Health and Human Services on an unprecedented scale to revoke the passports of Americans who have racked up significant outstanding child support debt.

This action supports the welfare of American children by exacting real consequences for child support delinquency under existing federal law. Any American was said, significant child support debt should arrange payment to the relevant state or states now to prevent passport revocation. Once a passport is revoked, it may no longer be used for travel. Eligibility for a new passport will only be restored after child support debt is paid to the relevant state child support enforcement agency and the individual is no longer delinquent according to HHS records. End quote. The department said that since it began enforcing the policy in 1998, mainly through denials rather than revocations, states had collected roughly $657 million in arrears.

The department called this a common sense tool to support American families and strengthen compliance with U.S. laws. Okay, so what exactly does federal law permit in a situation where someone owes child support? Federal law says that if the HHS secretary receives a certification by a state agency that an individual owes a rearges of child support in an amount exceeding $2,500, the HHS secretary shall then transmit said certification to the Secretary of State for action. According to federal law, the Secretary of State shall then refuse to issue a passport to that individual and may revoke, restrict, or limit a passport issued previously to the individual. And that is Title 42 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 652, Section K. So the State Department says it's going to start with people who owe $100,000 or more, which is about 2,700 passport holders, and then it will expand to the broader. group above that smaller $2,500 threshold. HHS is reportedly still collecting data from state agencies to determine who falls into that owes above $2,500 bucket. Those whose passports are revoked

will be notified that they won't be able to use their documents for travel, and they will have to apply for a new passport once their arrears are confirmed as paid. And then a passport holder who is abroad at the time of revocation, we'll have to visit a U.S. Embassy or Consulate to obtain, you know, an emergency travel document that allows them to return to the United States. Okay. Now, a lot of you have asked me to talk about this redid, or I shouldn't even say this redistricting fight. I should say these redistricting fights, specifically in Virginia and Tennessee, though we are seeing them all over the country, right? Over the last year or so, redistricting has sort of become a much bigger national fight.

we see this redistricting every 10 years after every census, but in the last year or so, several states have implemented new congressional maps, those states being Texas, California, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and Utah. In some states, Republican lawmakers are trying to make, you know, the states more favorable to Republicans in other states. Democratic lawmakers are drawing maps that are more favorable for Democrats. And this really started, which We'll get into the whole context and history of this, but this started when President Trump had asked Republicans to redistrict and make, you know, red states more favorable to Republicans. And the fight really started with Texas. And then California jumped in and said, okay, we're going to offset Texas.

And then it kind of just expanded to all of these different states. And we'll touch on the different states at the end. But what you have specifically asked me to talk about is Virginia and Tennessee. because those two are kind of the two that are in the limelight right now. The easiest way to understand both of these fights is this. Virginia is a Democratic-led attempt to redraw maps that just got blocked by the state's Supreme Court. Tennessee is a Republican-led attempt to redraw maps that's currently being challenged in

court. So in Virginia, we'll cover Virginia first, Democrats tried to redraw the state's congressional map to possibly help Democrats pick up as many as four additional seats in the House. Voters actually approved the redistricting plan in an April referendum, but following that on May 8th, the Virginia Supreme Court came in and struck the map down in a four to three decision. And what's important to understand here is that the state Supreme Court did not rule on whether the map was racially gerrymandered or even whether it was politically gerrymandered. standard. Instead, the court ruled on procedure. Okay. So the court said that the lawmakers did not follow

the proper constitutional procedure for putting the redistricting amendment in front of voters. So Virginia's constitution is interesting in that it has a very specific process for constitutional amendments. In order to pass a constitutional amendment, Virginia lawmakers have to first pass the proposed constitutional amendment. Then once the lawmakers pass the proposed amendment once, voters actually have to elect the entire House of Delegates for a new term. And in Virginia, this happens every two years. All 100 seats in the House of Delegates are up.

After that election, the General Assembly, which includes both the newly elected House of Delegates and the state Senate, has to pass the same amendment again. When and if the newly elected legislature passes the amendment, that is when it can go to voters in a statewide referendum. So the whole point of that middle election is that, you know, voters are supposed to know what lawmakers just proposed and just passed and then have a chance to either keep those lawmakers in office or vote them out before the amendment moves forward. But the problem in Virginia's case was that lawmakers gave the amendment its first. approval after early voting had already started for the 2025 House of Delegates election. So the court basically said, look, you are supposed to pass the amendment, then hold an election, then pass it again. But instead, you pass the amendment while the election was already underway

after early voting had already started. And because of that, the court said the 2025 election did not properly count as the required election between the first and second votes on the amendment. and therefore the voter approved amendment was invalid. So what this means, at least for now, is that Virginia's current congressional map will stay in place. The new map will not take effect. Now, this is, of course, a political win for Republicans because the Democratic-backed map could have made several districts in the state

more favorable to Democrats. Democrats are planning to appeal the court's decision, but as of right now, the new map is blocked. And just to be clear, if Democrats do appeal, the next place this case would go is the Supreme Court of the United States, and from there, the justices would decide whether to take a look at it. They don't have to review the case. They would just kind of, you know, take a look at it, see what they want to do with it, and then they could either agree to hear it or just deny it, and then the state Supreme Court decision would stand.

Now, Tennessee is almost the exact opposite situation in terms of politics. So in Tennessee, Republicans control the state legislature and Governor Lee called lawmakers into a special session to take up congressional redistricting. During that special session, Republicans passed a new congressional map that would split up the state's only majority black and reliably Democratic congressional district. And that is the Memphis-based 9th congressional district. So currently, Memphis is largely represented by its own Democratic-leaning majority-black congressional district. Under the new map, though, Memphis would be divided among three different Republican-leaning districts. So instead of Memphis voters having one district where they make up a powerful voting block, those voters would be spread out across several districts that also include more conservative,

suburban, and rural areas. Now, Democrats and voting rights groups say this dilutes black voting power and essentially eliminates the state's last Democratic congressional seat. Republicans argue that the map is perfectly legal and reflects the political makeup of the state. Keep in mind, too, that each state has different procedures for enacting these new maps, right? Each state is different. So Virginia has a more complicated procedure. They have to actually pass a constitutional amendment. and their procedures to pass a constitutional amendment are complicated.

But in Tennessee, it's much simpler. In Tennessee, congressional maps are drawn by the state legislature as regular legislation. So this means that lawmakers can simply introduce a redistricting bill, pass it through the state house and state Senate, and then send it to the governor. And once the governor signs it, the map becomes law. So that's it. It's pretty straightforward. Now, prior to the new map being enacted, Tennessee,

had this state law that said congressional districts generally couldn't be changed between census-based reapportionments. In other words, maps could not be redrawn mid-decade. So alongside passing this new map, lawmakers also successfully moved to repeal that restriction. And that repeal is what cleared the way for this mid-decade redistricting. Now, as of right now, Tennessee's new map has been signed into law and it is very much in effect, but there are ongoing legal challenges. One of those legal challenges has to do with that repeal that we just talked about. So the Tennessee NAACP filed this lawsuit arguing that Tennessee lawmakers were not actually allowed to deal with the repeal during the special session because the governor's

proclamation did not specifically say that they would be taking up that repeal. And under Tennessee's constitution, when lawmakers are called into a special session, they're only supposed to handle the specific issues they were called in to address. So that Tennessee and NAACP's argument is essentially they were not allowed to address the repeal. Therefore, the repeal should be void. Therefore, the ban is still in effect. And Tennessee cannot redraw maps in between the census or mid-decade. at the same time, supporters of this new map can argue that because the governor called lawmakers into session to deal with congressional redistricting, lawmakers had to be able to pass the legislation

necessary to actually carry out that redistricting. In other words, if an existing state law blocked mid-decade redistricting, repealing that law could be seen as part of the same redistricting purpose. So the legal question in that challenge isn't just whether Tennessee could redraw its map. It's whether lawmakers validly, you know, cleared the way to do it during this special session. And then there's this other lawsuit in Tennessee, which was filed by Tennessee Democrats. That lawsuit is less focused on the exact district lines and more on timing because they're essentially arguing that the map was passed too close to the 2026 elections and could therefore create confusion for voters and election officials and should be struck down because of that.

That argument is tied to what's called the Purcell principle. The Purcell principle is the idea that courts should be cautious about changing election rules too close to an election because it could confuse voters and election officials. So again, for now, the map is law in Tennessee, but there are ongoing legal challenges that will have to be sorted out with time. And as I mentioned at the beginning of the story, there are eight states that have enacted new maps ahead of the upcoming midterms. Texas redrew its map last year, creating an opportunity for Republicans to gain up to five house seats. California then passed a new map that could help Democrats gain up to five house seats. Florida just enacted a new map that could help Republicans gain up to four seats. Tennessee's new map could help Republicans gain one seat by splitting up that Memphis-based district.

North Carolina's new map could help Republicans gain one seat as well. Ohio's new map could help Republicans gain up to two seats. Missouri's new map could help Republicans gain one seat and Utah's new map could help Democrats gain one seat. So some of those maps are still being challenged in court, but as of now, the new maps could give Republicans a chance to gain up to 14 house seats and Democrats a chance to gain up to six. And we're also keeping an eye on states like Louisiana, Alabama, and South Carolina where new maps could potentially help Republicans. Okay, let's take a break here. When we come back, We'll talk about the release of the UFO files. We'll do an update on hauntavirus and more.

There's this girl I follow on social media who has built a platform around educating people on financial literacy. And I personally know very little about managing finances and just kind of setting yourself up for the future, so to speak. So I really love watching her content. But I think the most basic concept that I've taken away from consuming her content is how important it is to just start. Starting is usually the hardest part because it can be kind of overwhelming. But once you do, there are so many benefits that can come from tracking your spending, investing, tracking your net worth, et cetera. And that's a big part of the reason I downloaded Rocket Money last year. Now, one of my favorite features, if not my favorite feature on Rocket Money, is the feature that

lets you not only track your subscriptions, but also cancel the subscriptions you don't want, and you can do this all within the app. Just last week, I actually canceled a subscription that was costing me $400 a year. This feature alone has saved Rocket money users over $880 million in canceled subscriptions. With Rocket Money, you can also set budgets and goals. You can get personalized insights and reports. You can get real-time alerts for bigger transactions. You can get reminded of upcoming bills and so much more. I don't know about you, but I'm trying to be a millionaire one day. Okay? And Rocket Money is helping me get there. Rocket Money is a personal finance app that helps find and cancel unwanted subscriptions, monitors your spending, and helps you

lower your bills so you can grow your savings. Let Rocket Money help. help you reach your financial goals faster. Join at rocketmoney.com slash unbiased. That's rocketmoney.com slash unbiased. Rocketmoney.com slash unbiased. This episode is brought to you by FedEx. These days, the power move isn't having a big metallic credit card to drop on the check at a corporate launch. The real power move is leveling up your business with FedEx intelligence. And actually, accessing one of the biggest data networks powered by one of the biggest delivery networks. Level up your business with FedEx, the new power move. Welcome back. On Friday, the Pentagon released never before seen files about UFOs.

The new website, which was made available Friday and houses all of the files that were released, reads in part, quote, in response to President Trump's directive for transparency on U.S. information regarding unidentified anomalous phenomena, UAP. The Department of War with support from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is overseeing government-wide efforts to expeditiously find, review, identify, declassify, and publicly release unresolved UAP-related records and historical documents in the federal government's possession. Given the scope of this task, the Department of War will be releasing new materials on a rolling

basis as they are discovered and declassified, with tranches posted every few weeks. The materials archived here are unresolved cases, meaning the government is unable to make a definitive determination on the nature of the observed phenomena. This can occur for a variety of reasons, including a lack of sufficient data, and the Department of War welcomes the application of private sector analysis, information, and expertise. DOW will continue to conduct separate reporting on unresolved UAP cases as mandated by statute. Under this administration, we will pursue the truth and share our findings with the American people.

And quote. So this release mainly includes videos, pictures, documents, all things of that nature. There are a few things included in the release that are getting special attention, which we will talk about in just a minute. But first, I kind of want to just cover why these files were released. So in 2017, the New York Times reported that the paper. Pentagon had created this secret classified program back in 2007 to look at reports of UFOs. That program was called the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program or AATIP.

And after that, lawmakers and former military officials too were kind of pushing the government to be more transparent about what it knows. And then a few years later in 2022, after years of lawmakers pushing for, you know, more transparency and formal oversight around UAPs, the Pentagon created the all-domain anomaly resolution office, or AARO. That office has since been involved in reviewing UAP reports and releasing more information to the public. And in 2024, it actually released a pretty major report which reviewed years and years of U.S. government involvement with UFOs or what the government now calls UAPs. That report basically looked back at government programs and investigations going back to the 40s, but AARO ultimately concluded that it had found no verifiable evidence that any UAP

citing represented any sort of extraterrestrial activity and no verifiable evidence that the U.S. government or private industry had access to alien technology. So that was the conclusion of the 2024 report. But this latest batch of files was part of of a broader government transparency effort. So it wasn't just a release by AARO. The White House, ODNI, DOE, NASA, FBI, other intelligence components, they were all involved in this most recent release.

Like the 2024 release, though, the government isn't really, I mean, it's not confirming or denying the existence of extraterrestrial activity. Instead, the government's basically just saying, here you go. Here's a bunch of files. Take a look at them for yourself.

Come to your own conclusions. See what you can come up with. we don't have anything to tell you. So with that context, now let's talk about a few of the more notable files or some of the files that people are talking the most about. First, there's a transcript of NASA's Apollo 17 where pilot Ronald Evans is quoted saying, now we've got a few very bright particles or fragments or something that go drifting by as we maneuver. Pilot Harrison Schmidt then says there's a whole bunch of big ones on my window down there, just bright. It looks like the 4th of July out of Ron's window. Evans says, now you can see some of them in shape.

They're very jagged, angular fragments that are tumbling. Then those are bored throwing their guesses as to what it might be, everything from fluid to pieces of something to ice chunks, paint from the third stage of the Saturn 5 rocket used on Apollo mission. So they were all kind of trying to guess what it could be. commander Sernan describes them as, quote, flat, flake-like particles some six inches across, end quote. He said there was no relative motion between the two, that most of them seemed to be twinkling, and that for the most part, all of the pieces were moving away from them. Over the next few hours, Sernan described seeing several flashing rotating phenomena that he believed corresponded to physical objects in space rather than just an optical phenomenon.

So that was one of the more notable portions of the release. Another notable portion is a transcript from the 1969 Apollo 11 crew. Astronaut Buzz Aldrin saw several things that he made note of. He said the first unusual thing they saw was one day out or something pretty close to the moon that had a sizable dimension to it. He said he also saw flashing lights while trying to sleep and at one point, quote, a fairly bright light source which we tentatively ascribed to a possible laser, end quote. Then, perhaps one of the more bizarre phenomena in the files is what appears to be this eight-pointed star that's flying across the sky back in 2013.

A description on the UFO files website reads, quote, The United States Central Command submitted a report of an unidentified anomalous phenomenon to the AARO consisting of one minute and 46 seconds of video. footage from an infrared sensor aboard a U.S. military platform in 2013. The reporter did not provide any oral or written description of the observation. The video depicts an area of contrast resembling an eight-pointed star with arms of alternating length. And quote, the site also notes that this particular phenomenon was recorded in the Middle East. And again, that was 2013. So there are definitely a few things in the files that are interesting and, you know, have people talking. But again, the government is not confirming or denying the existence of extraterrestrial activity. It's not

coming to any conclusions. It's just sort of saying, here you go, take a look, come to whatever conclusions you want. And now for a quick hauntavirus update. So first of all, the passenger evacuation is expected to be completed today. The ship has been docked in Spain's Canary Islands. And it's reported that 94 passengers had already been repatriated with the final 24 passengers expected to leave today. As for the crew members, about 30 of them are expected to stay on board. The ship is going to now go to the Netherlands, which is its flag state. That trip should take about five to seven days. Once it gets there, it will be disinfected. At least two passengers evacuated from the ship have now tested positive for hauntavirus. One of those passengers is a French woman,

she is reportedly in serious condition in a Paris hospital. Her condition is said to be deteriorating. And another passenger is an American passenger who tested, quote unquote, mildly positive. There are also reports of another American passenger who is experiencing mild symptoms, but hasn't been confirmed positive as of today. So all American passengers, except for those two that we just talked about, have been flown to the national quarantine unit at the University of Nebraska in Omaha. The national quarantine unit, not many people, I feel like, know that this

exists, but the national quarantine unit is actually the only federally funded quarantine center in the United States. So it opened in November 2019 just before the pandemic, and it houses 20 beds. And the rooms that are in this unit are actually equipped with negative air pressure systems, which are designed to prevent the spread of any infectious disease. So those 16 passengers will stay there for a period of up to 42 days. While they're there, they will be observed essentially around the clock by a team of doctors and nurses. The one American passenger who tested positive and the other American passenger who is experiencing mild symptoms will both be staying in a different part of this facility in Nebraska.

They will be housed in a specialized biocontainment unit that is separate from everyone else. So that's what's going on with the Americans who just got off the ship. But remember, there were some Americans who disembarked last month at the end of April. And on Thursday, I mentioned that health officials in Arizona and Georgia were monitoring those residents who had gotten off the ship early and had since returned home. But the latest update shows that six states are now monitoring residents. Those states are Arizona, California, Georgia, New Jersey, Texas, and Virginia. fortunately though none of those states have reported any cases at this point the world health organization is recommending a 42 day monitoring period for passengers starting yesterday may 10th and again as we discussed in thursday's episode multiple health officials have emphasized that the andes virus does not transmit as easily as covid or the flu they've also said transmission typically involves close or prolonged contact with a symptomatic person they've also said the risk to the general public is low. So they keep saying that over and over again. At the same time,

the CDC's acting director of the division of high consequence pathogens and pathology said he can't promise that hauntavirus won't spread to the general public. He said, quote, there are no guarantees in life, but we're putting as many measures in place as possible to ensure that people are safe and healthy. End quote. So that's what's going on with that. Now we're going to do some quick hitters. President Trump rejected Iran's latest peace proposal calling it quote unquote totally unacceptable after Tehran reportedly refused to negotiate over its nuclear and missile programs. Iran's counteroffer focused instead on ending the fighting, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and easing sanctions while Trump said the United States position remains that Iran cannot

rebuild or maintain nuclear weapons capabilities. Trump also told reporters on Monday that the ceasefire is on quote, massive life support. He compared it to when a doctor walks in and tells you that your loved one has approximately a 1% chance. Six people were found dead Sunday afternoon inside a Union Pacific box car at a rail yard in Laredo, Texas. That's near the U.S. Mexico border. The bodies were reportedly discovered during a rail car inspection, and authorities have not

yet released the victim's identities, ages, nationalities, or cause of death. A Frontier Airlines flight from Denver to Los Angeles struck and killed a person on a runway at Denver International Airport during takeoff Friday night. Officials have said the person breached airport security by jumping up perimeter fence, though it's unclear why at this point. The pilots did abort takeoff after reporting an engine fire and smoke in the cabin. All 224 passengers and seven crew members were evacuated. 12 passengers reported minor injuries, five were taken to the hospital, and local and federal officials are investigating both the security breach and the evacuation response. Energy Secretary Chris Wright says the Trump administration is open to temporarily pausing the federal

gas tax as a way to lower prices at the pump while fuel costs are on the rise. The federal gas tax is currently 18.4 cents per gallon, but any suspension would likely require action from Congress. Now, just to clarify here, for, you know, the everyday consumer like you and I, a pause on the federal gas tax wouldn't necessarily mean gas prices drop by the full 18.4 cents per gallon, right? Given that that's the current federal gas tax, that's the maximum possible savings, but some of that would very likely get eaten up before it ever reaches consumers. So practically speaking, drivers probably wouldn't see that full 18.4 cent savings at the pump if a pause were to be put in place. Cole Allen, the man accused of attempting to assassinate President Trump at the White House Correspondence Center, pleaded not guilty at his federal arraignment today.

His defense attorneys are also seeking to remove two top DOJ officials from the case over alleged conflicts of interest. And finally, critical thinking. This segment is not meant to be too complex. It is just meant to challenge you a little bit, get you thinking twice about your opinions and kind of just asking yourself why you feel the way you do about certain things. So for today's segment, I want to talk about redistricting, but I do want to give you some added context. Usually we get right into the questions. I think we need to talk a little bit more generally about redistricting and partisan gerrymandering first. First and foremost, both Democrats and Republicans have used redistricting to benefit their own party when they control the map. process. That is what partisan gerrymandering is. The party in power draws district lines in a way that

gives itself an electoral advantage. So both parties are very much guilty of doing this. Right now, we're hearing a lot about Republicans leading the redistricting charge and Democrats responding. And that's very much the case. Republican, Texas specifically led the charge here and then California responded, and now it has expanded. But it's important to understand that throughout history, both parties have use redistricting for partisan advantage when they've had the power to do so. Now, as far as mid-decade redistricting, normally states redraw congressional and state legislative districts once every 10 years. That is after each census. And that's because the census shows population changes and districts have to be adjusted so they have roughly equal populations. But mid-decade redistricting has happened before.

The best known sort of modern day example, I suppose, is Texas back in 2003 when Republicans gained full control of the state government and redrew the state's congressional map in the middle of the decade to increase Republican representation. That case went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. And the court did find that that one Texas district violated the Voting Rights Act, but the court did not say that mid-decade redistricting is automatically. unconstitutional, okay? And since that decision, we have seen more states attempt to redistrict mid-decade. That said, mid-decade redistricting is still more unusual than the normal post-census redistricting process. And what we're seeing right now where multiple states are redrawing congressional district lines in the middle of the decade is unusual for the 20th and 21st century. We saw mid-decade redistricting much more during the 1800s, but for the 100-year span between

1900 and 2000, mid-decade redistricting really didn't happen much. It only picked up again after the 2000 census with states like Texas, Colorado, and Georgia starting to kind of get involved in those mid-decade math disputes. And then, of course, in more recent years, we've been seeing it more and more. But that is to add some context. Now I want to pose some questions. My first question for you is this. If your party redraws a map to benefit itself, do you see that as smart politics or do you see it as a problem for democracy? And does your answer change when the other party does the exact same thing? The next question is should the goal of redistricting be to create as many competitive districts as possible? Or should the goal be to create districts that

reflect natural communities, even if those districts end up favoring one party? And then finally, when you hear the word gerrymandering, are you reacting to the principle of gerrymandering? or are you reacting to which party benefits from the map? Or are you reacting to something else? Where does your reaction come from? That's what I have for you. Thank you so much for being here. As always,

I hope you have a fantastic next couple of days. And we will talk again on Thursday. The Supreme Court is releasing some decisions Thursday morning, I believe. I hope I'm not mistaken on that. I think that's the case. So if there's anything interesting there, I will definitely tell you about it. And yeah, that's about it.

We'll talk on Thursday.