UNBIASED - May 14, 2026: Murdaugh's Conviction Overturned, CA Mayor Admits to Acting as Chinese Agent, Whistleblower Testifies About COVID Origins, Mamdani's Balanced Budget, and More.

Episode Date: May 14, 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: CIA Whistleblower Testifies Before Senate Committee Alleging Cover Up on COVID Origins (0:37) FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary Resigns (7:16) California Mayor Admits to Acting as Chinese Agent (12:18) South Carolina Supreme Court Overturns Alex Murdaugh's Double Murder Conviction. Here's Why. (~19:38) Quick Hitters (~26:04) Rumor Has It: Are People Really Losing Their Deposits on the Trump T1 Smartphone? Did Mayor Mamdani Really Balance the NYC Budget? (~29:27) Critical Thinking Segment (~32:59) ⁠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, May 14th. Let's talk about some news. If you're watching on YouTube, you will see. I have a bandage on my nose. I did have to get Mose surgery. I know a ton of you have had Mose surgery before.

You wrote to me on social media telling me everything will be okay. Everything is okay. I'm happy to report. But yeah, my face just hurts a little bit. It's a little swollen. and I have a bandage. So that's what that is. Don't forget to go get your skin checked. Very, very important. Okay, let's jump into the news. Yesterday, a CIA whistleblower testified before a set at committee about the origins of COVID and more specifically whether parts of the U.S.

intelligence community downplayed or buried evidence that pointed toward a possible lab leak. So the whistleblower's name is James Erdman, the third. He's a senior operations office. and the CIA. And if I had to sum up his testimony in one sentence, it would be this. Despite the lab leak theory being labeled a conspiracy theory in the early days of the pandemic, it was actually taken much more seriously inside parts of the intelligence community than the public was led to believe. So he essentially said that inside the intelligence community, there were analysts and experts who from the beginning thought that COVID more likely, likely resulted from a lab leak than natural origins. But these analyses were either buried or

rewritten by other experts. So they never reached the public. And Erdman said that a major reason for this, a major reason that they were buried or rewritten, had to do with the role of Dr. Fauci, who not only served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, but had close ties and access to the intelligence community. Erdman also alleged that the CIA retaliated against whistleblowers and illegally surveilled investigators who were looking into the virus's origins. Now, to paint the full picture here, and we're going to get a little bit off topic from the whistleblower's testimony, that was the general gist of the testimony. But what I want to do is I want to paint the full picture and then we'll wrap it up in a bow and it'll all make sense.

I think it's important to lay the background, if you will, for why this whistleblower was testifying in the first place. So this was a huge. hearing led by Senator Rand Paul. Senator Rand Paul chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee. And Paul has been investigating COVID origins for years. And he's argued that federal officials, including Dr. Fauci, played a big role in hiding the origins of COVID and sort of helping steer the COVID origins conversation away from the lab leak theory and toward the natural origin theory. Paul says the lab leak theory was dismissed way too quickly and that officials just weren't fully honest about the virus research that was happening in Wuhan at the time. And along similar

lines, Paul has accused Fauci specifically of misleading Congress about what Paul calls gain of function research that was taking place in Wuhan prior to the pandemic. So gain of function research is basically when scientists change something in a virus so that it gains a new ability, right? That could mean the virus becomes better at infecting cells. Maybe it gets better at spreading. Maybe it becomes more dangerous in lab animals. Or maybe it's able to survive certain conditions that it couldn't survive before, things like that. Scientists will sometimes study viruses this way because they say it helps them understand what could make a virus more dangerous in the real world. But it can obviously be very risky because if you make a virus more dangerous in a lab,

you have to worry about what happens if there's an accident, like a lab leak. So before the pandemic, the NIH gave grant money to a group called Eco Health Alliance. And EcoHealth Alliance worked with the Wuhan Institute of Virology on Bat coronavirus research. That is undisputed. Okay. EcoHealth received $3.7 million over six years from NIH and sent nearly 600,000 of that to the Wuhan lab as part of the bat coronavirus project. Now, the fight between Senator Paul and Dr. Fauci is what kind of coronavirus research this was. So Senator Paul says it was gain of function research because some of the research involved

modifying or studying the virus in ways that made it more dangerous before it ultimately leaked to the public. Fauci, though, says it wasn't gain of research because the research didn't meet the government's official definition of gain of function research of concern. So basically, Fauci is using the narrower federal definition. Paul is using a broader definition. And the reason that discrepancy matters is because back in 2021, Fauci told Congress that NIH had not funded gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute. Paul, though, says that statement was false or misleading.

So this whole fight comes down to what gain of function actually means. But why does the definition matter? Why are we going down this rabbit hole? Well, if the Wuhan research did count as gain of function, then critics are you, it should have received, you know, stricter oversight before U.S. taxpayer money supported it, but also that it would raise questions about whether Fauci's testimony to Congress was accurate when he said NIH didn't fund gain of function research there. And Paul has actually gone as far as asking the DOJ to prosecute Fauci for allegedly lying to Congress during that 2021 hearing.

Coincidentally, the statute of limitations or the window in which the DOJ could have charged Fauci actually expired this past Monday. So he was not charged. He can't be charged for those statements he made to Congress now that the statute of limitations has expired. But to bring this back to the whistleblower hearing or whistleblower testimony, Senator Paul held this hearing to support his broader argument that the government was not fully transparent about COVID origins and that the government and Dr. Fauci downplayed the lab leak theory despite giving it some merit behind closed doors. And of course, he had Erdman testify, specifically because Erdman's testimony supported those claims. So that's what's in the background of this whistleblower

testimony. Now, the CIA director of public affairs put out a statement in response to Erdman's testimony saying, quote, the committee acted in bad faith by subpoenaing an agency officer for testimony today without notifying the CIA, despite having already obtained closed door testimony from the individual previously. The witness testifying today is not appearing as a whistleblower in pursuit of the truth, but instead in response to the subpoena issued by Chairman Paul. This proceeding amounts to nothing more than dishonest political theater masquerading as a congressional hearing. As the CIA has already assessed, COVID-19 most likely originated from a lab leak,

and efforts to undermine that conclusion are disingenuous. End quote. Okay. next story sticking with federal agencies. FDA commissioner Dr. Marty McCarrie is out after just 13 months on the job and just one week after we talked about the FDA's authorization of flavored vapes. As always, we'll run through a bit of background so that we're all on the same page. So Trump first announced McCarrie as his pick to lead the FDA back in November 2024 just after he won the election. McCarrie was confirmed by the Senate in March 2025. He was officially sworn in at the

beginning of April. Now, McCary was chosen as part of the administration's Make America Healthy Again Push under RFK Jr. So McCarrie came into the role promising some pretty major changes, things like faster drug reviews, more scrutiny of food additives, new approaches to rare disease treatments, and kind of a less quote unquote traditional way of thinking about health policy. But throughout his time at the FDA, there were multiple policy fights between McCarrie and people within the Trump administration. One of those policy fights was over vapes, as we talked about last week. So Trump had promised during his 2024 campaign that he would protect vaping products.

But McCarrie reportedly wanted to deliberate longer on those approvals. Back in April, the Wall Street Journal reported on this February memo from McCarrie's office that prevented the FDA from authorizing several vape flavors, claiming the FDA needed more time to evaluate those flavors. And as we talked about last week, this frustrated the president, leading the president to consult his advisors on whether to keep McCarrie in his position. McCary also faced criticism from certain Republicans and anti-abortion groups over the FDA's review of Miffa-Pristone.

Miffa-Pristone is, of course, one of the two drugs commonly used in medication abortions, but it's also been the target of some legal disputes in recent years, especially after the FDA loosened some of the restrictions around Miffa Prestone and allowed it to be prescribed through telehealth and sent by mail. In fact, just last week, the Supreme Court temporarily allowed Miffa Preston to continue being available by mail while the ongoing legal fight, you know, plays out. But under McCarrie's leadership, the FDA announced that it was reviewing Miffa Pristone safety. That review began in July of last year. It was still ongoing as of September. So certain Republican lawmakers and anti-abortion groups started criticizing McCarrie for quote-unquote slow-walking

the review. And to add to that, while that review was happening, the FDA actually approved a new generic version of Miffa-Pristone. So the anti-abortion groups really didn't like that. In fact, the group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, called for McCarrie to be fired following that approval. In addition to anti-abortion groups and some Republicans criticizing McCarrie for his handling a Miff of Pristone, McCary also was getting criticized by drug makers over the way the FDA was handling drug approval decisions. And the issue there wasn't just that, you know, the FDA was rejecting drugs because the FDA rejects drugs all the time. The issue, according to drug makers, was predictability. Basically, drug companies, you know, they spend years designing their study.

around drugs, around what they think the FDA wants to see. So when the FDA then rejects a drug after years of back and forth with the FDA or, you know, seems to change what kind of evidence it wants, sometimes late in the game, drug makers get frustrated. And that's what was happening under McCarrie's leadership. A recent example of this involved Moderna's MRI flu vaccine. In February, the FDA said it wasn't going to review Maderna's application because the trial design did not use the right comparison group for older adults. But Moderna said that it had actually discussed the trial design with FDA officials in the past and thought the FDA had agreed to the plan. So then, about a week later, the FDA ends up reversing course and ultimately agrees to

review Maderna's revised application. But that whole thing kind of fed this bigger issue the drug makers were having, which was that the FDA's expectations were becoming harder to predict. So there were clearly a few tension points here. But ultimately, reports are saying this all came down to frustration over his delays in changing guidance on abortion drugs, as well as the delays in approving the flavored vapes. And an administration official who was granted anonymity to discuss the resignation said it was HHS Secretary Kennedy who ultimately made the call. As for President Trump, he told reporters on Tuesday that McCarrie is a terrific guy who was having some difficulty, but is going to go on and lead a good life. So now Kyle Diamantas, the 38-year-old

deputy commissioner for food, will take over as acting FDA commissioner and Trump will have to nominate a replacement. Okay, moving on to this next story, a Southern California mayor has resigned from her position and says she will plead guilty to acting as a Chinese agent. Eileen Wang is her name. she is a former city council member turned mayor in Arcadia, California, which is a city in Los Angeles County. According to the DOJ, Wang secretly worked on behalf of the Chinese government before she served in any elected position. Okay, so the headlines aren't really talking about that part. This was all before she was ever elected to city council well before she was elected as mayor. According to her plea agreement from late 2020 through 2022,

Wang and her fiance worked at the direction and control of Chinese government officials and coordinated with U.S.-based individuals to promote Chinese interests. That plea agreement says that among other things, they would promote pro-PRC propaganda in the United States. Specifically, Wang and her fiance worked together on this website called U.S. News Center, which was a news source for the local Chinese. Chinese American community. However, Wang and her fiance received and executed directives from Chinese government officials to post pro-PRC, People's Republic of China, content on the site.

So as an example, in June 2021, a PRC official contacted Wang through this encrypted messaging app called WeChat and sent her pre-written news articles, including a PRC official written written essay that said, quote, China's stance on the Xinjiang issue. There is no genocide in Xinjiang. There is no such thing as forced labor in any production activity, including cotton production, spreading such a rumor to defame China, weak in local economy, suppress China's development, et cetera, et cetera, is basically a pro-Chinese piece, okay, or pro-Chinese government piece. Minutes after she received that article, she then posted it to the U.S. News Center site, and responded to the PRC official with a link to the published article.

The other individuals that were in this group chat did the same. The PRC official responded so fast, thank you everyone. Then in August 2021, Wang and three other members of the same group chat shared links to this one particular article on their respective news sites. And the PRC official again thanked them for their reporting. at the PRC official's request, Wang then made edits to the article. She sent the official a link to the article reflecting the requested change, then sent the official a screenshot showing the article had been viewed 15,000 times. In response, the official messaged her saying, great, and she replied, thank you leader. Now, just so we're all on the same page, under federal law, it is not automatically illegal to, you know, support a foreign government.

it's not illegal to publish favorable content about a foreign government. The legal issue comes down to disclosure. So if someone is acting in the United States at the direction or control of a foreign government, they generally have to notify the U.S. Attorney General. Prosecutors say Wang did not do that. Wang admitted that she did not do that in her plea agreement. So she's not being charged because she just posted pro-China content. She's being charged because she was essentially doing.

work for the Chinese government without putting our government on notice. And again, just to be clear, these illegal acts happened between 2020 and 2022. She wasn't elected, you know, to the city council until November 22 and then she wasn't elected mayor until 2026. So none of the illegal acts took place while she was serving in an elected office. Nonetheless, she will plead guilty to one felony count of acting in the U.S. as an illegal agent of a foreign government, which does carry a maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison. Okay, let's take a quick break here when we come back. We'll talk about Alec Murdoch's double murder conviction getting overturned.

And then we'll finish with quick hitters, rumor has it, and critical thinking. You're not going to be a dictator, are you? I said, no, no, no, other than day one. How did Donald Trump turn the presidency into a king? Well, it didn't start with him. It was the goal of a decades-long master plan. When the president does it, it is not illegal. I'm the decider, and I decide what is best.

Where they won't act, I will. I'm David Sorota from The Lever. On our new season of the award-winning Master Plan podcast, we uncover the stealth plot to create an all-powerful president. Or as some call it, a unitary executive. The unitary executive. Our journalists reveal the hidden scheme to eliminate checks and balances, crush democracy, and turn government by the people into government by one man. I have the right to do whatever I want as president. Check out Master Plan season two, the kingmakers.

Visit masterplanpodcast.com or search master plan in your podcast app to start listening right now. Welcome back. This next story has nothing to do with politics, but it was the most requested story by far when I asked all of you yesterday what you wanted to hear in today's episode. And lucky for you, it's a pretty slow news day. And I do enjoy talking about things like this. So let's talk about why Alec Murdoch's double murder conviction was overturned. actually first let's talk about why Alec Murdoch was found guilty of double murder in the first place. I'm sure many of you know the story. It kind of captivated the entire country. But just to quickly recap, Alec Murdoch was a prominent attorney in South Carolina. And in June 2021, Murdoch's wife Maggie and his son Paul were found shot dead on the family's property, specifically near the dog kennels, which were part of the family's hunting grounds.

Murdoch originally said he was not at the kennels the night of the shooting and therefore he could not have been the one that shot them. But his son Paul, the one who was ultimately killed, had recorded a video on his phone at the kennels the night that everything went down just minutes before prosecutors say the murders happened. And in the background of that video, you can hear Alex's voice. So later when Alec took the stand, he admitted that he was in fact at the kennels that night and that he had lied to investigators about it. Now that admission, of course, severely damaged his credibility. So his credibility became a huge part of the case. But there was also cell phone data, car data, and witness testimony that were used to essentially build this timeline showing that the murders happened shortly after that kennel video was taken and that after the murders, Murdoch. left the property to go visit his mom and then came back to the to the crime scene after.

That's when he called 911 claiming he had just found the bodies. As far as motive goes, prosecutors have argued that essentially his life was falling apart. He had stolen money from clients and from his law firm. His crimes were about to be exposed and the murders would have created a crisis that sort of shifted attention away from his financial problems. So their theory was basically that this was a desperation slash distraction situation. Now, this case was largely circumstantial. What do I mean by that?

There was no murder weapon presented at trial. There were no bloody clothes. There was no eyewitness who saw Murdoch pull the trigger. But based on the kennel video, the timeline that was established, his lies to investigators, and just the broader circumstantial evidence that was presented at trial, the jury felt they had enough to return a guilty verdict. And in this case, the jury deliberated for less than three hours before finding him guilty. He was ultimately sentenced to two consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole. But on Wednesday, those convictions and sentences were overturned.

Why? Well, first, what I want to be very clear about, these convictions were not overturned because the court found him innocent. Okay. The South Carolina Supreme Court found that Murdoch's trial had been tainted by improper jury influence involving the court clerk. And because of that, it said that Murdoch deserves a whole new trial. This is the thing. There is something called jury tainting or improper jury influence. When someone is on trial, jurors can of course be persuaded by what happens inside the courtroom, right? So they can listen to evidence, hear arguments from both sides, follow the judge's instructions, but they cannot be influenced by anyone outside the formal trial process, whether that person is a family member, a friend, a reporter, someone online, a court

employee, or anyone else. And that's essentially what the South Carolina Supreme Court said happened here. So in this case, the issue revolved around a woman named Becky Hill. She was the clerk of court during Alec Murdoch's trial. A clerk of court is in charge. A clerk of court is not a judge. Okay, a clerk of court is basically the person who helps the court with administrative tasks. So they help with things like managing court schedules, swearing and witnesses, helping with jury-related logistics, keeping track of filings and exhibits and documents, etc. So, you know, they can help the jury with things like where to go or when to come back, what paperwork to sign, things like that. But they can't tell jurors how to think about the evidence.

or, you know, sway them in any which way, they can't tell the jury not to believe certain evidence because at that point, the jury is no longer just weighing the evidence neutrally. They are being influenced by someone outside the formal process. And in this case, the court said, Hill made improper comments to some of the jurors during the trial. So as an example, one juror testified that on the day Murdoch was testifying, Hill told one of the jurors to keep an eye on Murdoch's body language. You can't do that. Another juror testified that Hill told them not to be quote unquote fooled by the evidence presented by the defense.

You can't do that either. So because the court found that the jury process had been improperly influenced by these comments, the convictions had to be overturned because every defendant, no matter what they're accused of or who they are, has the right to a fair trial by an. impartial jury. And bonus points, if anyone can name which constitutional amendment that principle comes from, because that means you've really paid attention at unbiased university. I'll give you a second to think about it. So anyone who said the sixth amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be correct. But that is what happened here. Now, Alec is not free by any means. He's currently serving a 27-year

state prison sentence and a 40-year federal prison sentence. He's serving those concurrently. And those are related to his his financial crimes, stealing money from clients, stealing money from his law firm. So he'll stay in prison and eventually there will be a new trial on his double murder charges. And if he's convicted and sentenced again, any sentence will just be tacked on to his existing sentences for his financial crimes like it was before. Now for some quick hitters, consumer prices rose 3.8% in April from a year earlier, which is the highest since 2020. importantly, energy accounted for more than 40% of CPI's monthly increase, and that is, of course, in large part due to what is going on in the Middle East. And speaking of inflation, the Senate confirmed Kevin Warsh as the next Fed chair in a 54 to 45 vote. That also happens to be the most divisive vote ever for a Fed chair.

The vote was along party lines, except for Democratic Senator John Federman, who voted for Warsh. will take over for Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Jerome Powell will stay on the Fed's board of governors when his term officially ends tomorrow on Friday. President Trump's meeting with President Xi and China today covered trade, the Iran war, oil and energy concerns, and broader efforts to stabilize U.S. China relations. She warned Trump during the meeting that if the U.S. mishandles the Taiwan issue, it could lead to, quote, clashes and even conflicts. And quote, she framed Taiwan as the most sensitive issue in U.S. China relations. The Trump administration is pausing new Medicare enrollments for home health and hospice providers

nationwide for six months, citing concerns about widespread fraud in the system. Existing providers will not be affected, but new providers will be temporarily blocked from enrolling in Medicare while the administration ramps up fraud investigation. U.S. Border Patrol Chief Michael Banks resigned today, effective immediately. Banks who previously served as Texas's borders are before being tapped by Trump to lead Border Patrol said it was time to return home to Texas and focus on family after nearly 37 years of public service. Six former Spirit Airlines employees filed a proposed class action lawsuit claiming the airline laid them off without proper notice and still owes them pay and benefits.

The lawsuit comes after Spirit abruptly shut down operations earlier this month. And the six former Spirit employees filed the lawsuit on behalf of similarly situated employees to recover damages equaling 60 days pay and ERISA benefits. The Senate unanimously approved a resolution to withhold senators' pay during future government shutdowns, though the money would be held and paid back once the shutdown ends. This measure only applies to senators, not the House, and it won't take effect until after the November election because there are constitutional limits on changing congressional pay midterm. And the final one, the White House, will host a nine-hour Christian prayer festival on Sunday at the National Mall. This event is called Rededicate 250 National Jubilee of Prayer, Praise, and Thanksgiving.

It will reportedly be partially funded by taxpayer dollars, which are earmarked for America's 250th birthday. President Trump will not be in attendance, but those speaking include Speaker Johnson, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Heggseth. And now it's time for rumor has it. Today we have two rumors that we need to address. The first one, rumor has it, people are losing their deposits on the Trump mobile smartphone. There is no evidence of this being true, but we will add some context as we always do.

This rumor seems to stem from a few unverified online reports from outlets like Atlanta Black Star and the International Business Times. These outlets are claiming that roughly 600,000 people who had put down $100,000 deposits for Trump's T1 phone were going to lose their money and never get their phone. There was also a Reddit thread making a similar claim. That thread was titled, Magas are fuming. for email confirms they will never get their $500 Trump phones or deposits back. The T1 Trump phone promised a made in USA build but left buyers without devices or refunds. So the fact-checking platform Snopes did look into this one. They found no evidence that Trump Mobile has told customers who paid deposits that they won't

be getting a phone or that they won't be getting their money back. Now, last month, Trump Mobile did update its pre-order terms and conditions. to say that the $100 deposit does not constitute a purchase. It does not reserve a specific phone. And it does not guarantee that the T1 phone will ever be produced or made available for purchase. The terms also say that any ship dates or launch timelines are just non-binding estimates. So it is fair to say that the phone's future is uncertain at this point. But as of right now, there's no evidence that Trump Mobile has made a definitive decision.

to either not produce the T1 phone or that customers are, you know, definitely losing those deposits. And the next one, rumor has it that Mayor Mom Dani has balanced the New York City budget for fiscal year 27. This is true based on the city's executive budget. Let's add some context. So according to New York City's own budget documents, the city's budget for fiscal year 2027 is balanced, which basically means the city expects to bring in the same amount of money that it plans to spend, right? A balanced budget does not mean that New York City has no debt.

It doesn't mean future budgets are balanced. In fact, New York City's budget chart still shows future gaps projected at $7.1 billion in fiscal year 2020, 9.1 billion in fiscal year 2029, and $9.8 billion in fiscal year 2030. A balanced budget just means that for this specific fiscal year, fiscal year 2027, the city's projected revenue and planned spending do match one another. So according to the city, the budget was balanced through a combination of state help, meaning both direct aid from New York State and approval from lawmakers for certain budget moves, like new taxes. The city also says the budget was balanced through new revenue, Of course, we've heard of the Pita Terra tax.

It was balanced through agency savings, program changes and cost controls, pension restructuring, meaning changes to how and when pension payments are made, and budget timing tools, like, you know, shifting when certain costs hit the books. So, yes, it appears to be true that Momdani balanced the fiscal year 2027 budget. The important context here is that the budget is balanced for one year. The city is still projecting pretty big budget gaps in the year. after fiscal year 2027. And now let's finish with some critical thinking. We're going to stick with the New York City budget story. So first, in your opinion, is a budget truly balanced if

future years still show multi-billion dollar gaps? Or is that just how budgeting works? You know, you take one fiscal year at a time and you do what you can. And then second, do you personally judge cost cutting differently, depending on what's actually being cut. Because cutting costs could mean a lot of different things, right? It can mean eliminating waste, reducing unused programs, renegotiating contracts, making the government more efficient. But other times, it can mean slowing down services, delaying promised programs, reducing funding for things that people tend to rely on, like shelter, schools, and sanitation. So again, the question is, do you judge cost cutting? differently depending on what's actually being cut. And the follow up to that is that if your

answer is yes, what makes one cut better than another? Is it how much money is being saved? Is it who's affected by the cut? Is it short term versus long term consequences? Is it whether you personally value the thing that's being cut or is it something else? That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. As always, I hope you have a fantastic weekend. And I will talk to you again on Monday.