UNBIASED - May 18, 2026: What to Know About the DOJ's New $1.776B "Anti-Weaponization" Compensation Fund, the Data Center Controversy, the Latest Supreme Court Updates, and More.

Episode Date: May 18, 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: What We Know About the DOJ's New $1.776B "Anti-Weaponization" Compensation Fund (0:12) What to Know About Data Centers and the Controversies Surrounding Them (~16:17) Supreme Court Updates: Mifepristone, Virginia's Congressional Map, Title IX, and More (~33:07) Quick Hitters (~38:12) Critical Thinking Segment (~41:59) ⁠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 a Monday, May 18th. Let's talk about some news. First, the big news of the day, the DOJ announced the creation of a $1.776 billion compensation fund to compensate people who, quote, suffered weaponization and lawfare, end quote. So this development follows news from earlier. this morning that President Trump had gone ahead and voluntarily dropped his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. And we'll do what we always do with this story too. We'll talk about all of it, but I want to kind of back up so that we're all starting from the same point. So back in February,

President Trump filed this $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS related to the leak of his tax returns. This is a leak that became public years ago. In IRS contract, named Charles Littlejohn was ultimately sentenced to prison for illegally disclosing tax return information. And he didn't just target Trump and Trump's sons, by the way. He admitted to stealing tax records of thousands of other very rich people like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk. Nonetheless, President Trump and his two sons, Don Jr. and Eric Trump went ahead and filed this lawsuit, essentially arguing that their private tax information was illegally leaked. because of the government's failure to take the necessary steps to prevent their employee from

doing this. And therefore, the government should be held responsible. Now, this morning, that lawsuit was voluntarily dropped. And in the last week or so, there's been talks of this potential settlement. So why settle? Why drop the lawsuit and settle? Well, we spoke back in February when this lawsuit was filed about how this suit has always been on shaky footing. So number one, it's questionable whether a court would have even allowed this case to proceed while Trump is in office strictly because of the potential conflict of interest, right? Trump was suing in his personal capacity and the IRS was the defendant. So what that means is the DOJ would have been responsible for either defending the IRS or reaching a settlement with Trump. And Trump as the sitting president oversees both of those agency or, you know, the IRS.

is a agency. The DOJ is a department. So Trump oversees both of those. And although attorneys general are expected to operate with some level of independence, a court could very well see this dynamic as a conflict that warrants pausing the case until Trump is out of office. In fact, a judge just recently ordered the parties to submit their reasons as to why this case should be allowed to proceed, given the fact that, you know, the sitting president was suing an executive agency that he oversees. So that was one issue. The other issue or the other thing that would have been a potential issue is the statute of limitations. So under federal law, lawsuits against the government for improper tax disclosure have to be initiated within two years of what's called the date

of discovery by the plaintiff. And there are two important dates here. So on one hand, Trump received official notice of the leak from the IRS in 2024. That would be within the statute of limitations. But there were leaked reports of his tax returns getting leaked as early as 2020. That's when the public first heard about it. So there's a question as to whether the statute of limitations started running when the public found out about the leaks back in 2020 or whether it started running when the Trump's received official notice from the IRS. If the court were to decide the former, then the

case would be thrown out because the statute of limitations would have deemed to have, you know, run, to have expired. So that would have been issue number two here. By dropping the lawsuit, these questions don't have to get answered and therefore the case isn't at risk of getting dismissed. So after, you know, news broke this morning that the case had been voluntarily dropped later in the day, the DOJ announced the creation of a compensation fund. And this is something we had been seeing reports of. I think the report started coming out midweek last week, maybe late week last week. But essentially, the DOJ released this press release today that reads in part, quote,

the U.S. Department of Justice today announced that as a part of the settlement agreement in President Donald J. Trump versus Internal Revenue Service, the Attorney General established the anti-weaponization fund to provide a system. process to hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponization and lawfare. Per the settlement, plaintiffs will receive a formal apology, but no monetary payment or damages of any kind, the plaintiffs obviously being President Trump and his sons. They have agreed, the plaintiffs have agreed in exchange for the creation of this fund to drop their pending lawsuit with prejudice and also withdraw two administrative claims, including for

damages resulting from the unlawful rate of Moralago and the Russia collusion hoax, end quote. And with prejudice, by the way, so the press release said that the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice. That means that the plaintiffs cannot bring this lawsuit again in the future. So the press release from the DOJ continues, quote, the fund will have the power to issue formal apologies and monetary relief owed to claimants. Submission of a claim is voluntary. there are no partisan requirements to file a claim.

Any money left when the fund ceases operations will revert to the federal government. The fund will receive $1.776 billion and will come from the judgment fund, which is a perpetual appropriation allowing the DOJ to settle and pay cases. On a quarterly basis, the fund shall send a report to the attorney general outlining who has received relief and what form of relief was awarded. At the Attorney General's discretion or direction, sorry, the fund can be audited. The fund must take steps to protect private information and avoid fraud. The fund shall cease processing claims no later than December 1st, 28.

Continuing, it says, quote, there is a legal precedent for such a fund, most notably the Keeps Eagle case, where the Obama administration created a $760 million fund to redress various claims, alleging racism against the federal government over a period of decades. In Keeps Eagle, hundreds of millions of dollars remaining in the fund were distributed to nonprofits and NGOs that never made claims, whereas any money remaining in the anti-weaponization fund will revert to the federal government. The Obama DOJ settled by putting $680 million from the judgment fund into a bank account for a single claims administrator to dole out.

In Keepsagle, Keeps Eagle, the remaining money, which ended up being over $300 million, was distributed to the entities that had not even submitted claims. The fund will consist of five members appointed by the attorney general. One member will be chosen in consultation with congressional leadership. The president can remove any member, but a replacement must be chosen the same way as the replaced member was selected. And quote. So that was the DOJ's press release.

Now, accompanying this press release was in order from the attorney general or the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche. So the order says, I'm just reading two notable points here. So one of the notable points is, quote, once the funds are deposited into the designated account, the United States has no liability whatsoever for the protection or safeguarding of those funds, regardless of bank failure, fraudulent transfers, or any other fraud or misuse of the funds. And quote, the order also says, quote, the funds deposited into the designated account may be used to pay for per diems, administrative services, funds, facilities, staff, travel, and other support

services as may be necessary to carry out the mission of the anti-weaponization fund. The members of the anti-weaponization fund shall serve as volunteers and gratuitous service providers without any further compensation for their work on the fund. End quote. Okay. So a couple of things to expand upon here. Number one, the judgment fund. I want to talk about this because this is where the money is ultimately coming from. And two, the Keeps Eagle case that was cited in the DOJ's press release. So first we'll talk about the judgment fund. The judgment fund is essentially, you could think about it as this like pot of money that can be used to pay certain court judgments and settlements against the federal government. It's actually run by the Treasury Department, not the DOJ.

The DOJ is just involved a lot of times with the fund because the DOJ is the one that represents the government in these lawsuits and can approve or negotiate settlements and litigation. So let's say someone sues the federal government and they win, right? Or let's say the government agrees to settle with the person that sued them or the entity that sued them. The money isn't always coming directly out of that agency's annual budget. In a lot of cases, it can actually be paid from this judgment fund. Now, money is not put into the judgment fund in the same way that money is put into a normal agency budget. The judgment fund is actually this like indefinite appropriation. So what that means is Congress has already passed this law that says when certain judgments or

settlements against the federal government need to be paid, the treasury is allowed to pay the necessary amount so long as the payment qualifies under judgment fund rules. So there's not a fixed annual pot of money that Congress is refilling every year for the fund. It's basically just this open-ended an account at the Treasury. So what the DOJ is saying here is that this new anti-weaponization fund will be funded through the judgment fund. So the Treasury Department will transfer, you know, $1.776 billion from the judgment fund to an account for the sole use by the anti-weaponization fund. Now, the second thing that I want to expand on is this Keeps Eagle settlement. What happened in keeps equal as this. Native American farmers and ranchers sued the Department of Agriculture.

And their claim was that for years, the USDA had discriminated against Native American farmers in its farm loan programs. Essentially, they were arguing that Native farmers were denied the same access to loans and loan servicing that white farmers had. The case was originally filed back in 1999, but it ended up becoming this very long-running class action lawsuit. So in 2011, during the Obama administration, a federal court approved a settlement that created a compensation fund for eligible Native American farmers and ranchers. People who qualified for compensation could go through an administrative claims process and they could get cash payments and possible loan forgiveness. So the DOJ is now using Keeps Eagle as an example of the judgment fund being used

to compensate a broader group of people as part of a settlement. Now, there are, of course, similarities and differences between the two. The most notable difference is that in Keeps Eagle, the fund was tied to a class action lawsuit involving a defined group of people, that group of people being the Native American farmers and ranchers who alleged they were harmed by USDA's lending policies. The group entitled to the Anti-Weaponization Fund isn't well-defined, right? It's really up for grabs for anyone who claims they suffered weaponization and lawfare. Another difference is that the Keeps Eagle settlement was approved by a federal court. This one was not. This was a settlement between the president, his two sons, and the DOJ. And then another difference is the amount in question.

So the keeps Eagle settlement created a $680 million compensation fund, whereas this anti-weaponization fund is worth $1.776 billion. At the same time, in both situations, because I said, there are similarities here too. In both situations, the federal government is accused of misconduct. the government is resolving litigation through a settlement and the settlement creates a fund instead of making specific payouts. In both cases, the fund is funded through the judgment fund and in both cases the idea is to set up a claims process where people who say they were harmed can apply for relief and someone has to decide who qualifies and how much they receive. So if and when this is challenged, which it most likely will be, let's be real, pretty much everything in politics is legally challenged.

The administration will likely argue that this is a legal settlement structure that uses an existing federal process to compensate people who say they were harmed by government misconduct. The challengers, on the other hand, are going to likely argue that the fund is too disconnected from the original IRS lawsuit and is too politically most. motivated and it's just generally too broad. And then it'll be up to a court, of course, to decide who has the stronger arguments, who wins, whether this anti-weaponization fund can, you know, can take effect. And that's how it'll go. So when and if a legal challenge is filed, we will, of course, cover it. But that is what we know as of right now about this new fund. Let's take our first break here. When we come back, we'll talk about data centers and what the current controversies are all about.

At Desjardin Insurance, we know that when you own a nail salon, everything needs to be perfect from tip to toe. That's why our agents go the extra mile to understand your business and provide tailored solutions for all its unique needs. You put your heart into your company, so we put our heart into making sure it's protected. Get insurance that's really big on care. Find an agent today at Dejardin.com slash business coverage. Welcome back. about data centers because this is a topic that's been getting quite a bit of attention in the news over the last few weeks. And I know a lot of you have questions because I've actually received

a lot of messages about what exactly is going on. What's the truth? What's not? So let's start at the beginning. If you're wondering what a data center is, you can think of it as just like a huge warehouse. Sometimes it can be a group of warehouses. But think of a huge warehouse that's just filled with computer servers, rows and rows of stacked servers. And a server is just basically a computer that, you know, stores and processes and sends information. Now, these are the facilities that help power the internet, cloud storage, streaming apps, and now more and more artificial intelligence, right? So when you open an app or you stream a show or you save something to the cloud, You use Chat, UBT, Qaeda, some other AI tool.

That information is stored and processed in a data center and then sent back to your phone or TV or computer, whatever you're using. So let's say you open Netflix or Hulu. I was actually watching Hulu last night. Highly recommend the show impeachment. If you haven't seen it, it's about the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. Really, really good. Anyway, let's say you open Netflix or Hulu and you click play on a show.

your TV sends a request over the internet to access that show. The data center is what helps send that show back to your TV so that you can watch it. Data centers actually help us with things that we do every single day. So when you check your email, that relies on data centers. When you open Google Maps or Ways, that relies on data centers. When you use your banking app, you Venmo someone, you pay a bill online, you FaceTime someone. And if you order food delivery, you book a flight, maybe you have the ring cameras at your house. All of these things depend on data being stored, processed, and sent back and forth

through these data centers. Hospitals use data centers to store medical records, schools use data centers for online portals, stores use them for inventory, governments use them for just about everything, tax filings, court records, emergency services, you name So all this to say, data centers are a massive part of our everyday life. They're a massive part of today's world. By the way, this is one of those words. If you say it too many times, you start to question it. You know how some people say data, some people say data. I go back and forth. But now that I'm saying data, it feels wrong. It feels like I should be saying data. Anyway, okay. So now let's get to the controversy. As AI grows and as people and businesses are

starting to use it more and more, the demand for these data centers is significantly increasing. But it's not just that we need more data centers. It's also that AI workloads specifically are much more power dense and heat dense than traditional data center workloads. So a traditional data center that handles things like email, online banking, cloud storage, streaming, things like that, those still use a lot of electricity, but an AI data center is different because it's usually running more powerful chips that tend to use a lot more electricity and generate a lot more heat. In fact, the International Energy Agency says that a typical hyper-scale data center, so the one helping with things like email online banking, streaming, stuff like that,

might use 100 megawatts at any given time while it's running. So basically while it's running, at any given time, it's using as much electricity as 100,000 households. But AI data centers are expected to concentrate peak power demand equal to 65 households in a space about the size of a household refrigerator. So when people say AI data centers are power dense, that is what they mean. They need a lot of electricity in a very small space. And then all of that heat has to be cooled. So basically these chips that are inside these servers, whether they're being used for AI or not, they're constantly processing information, right?

And when they do that, they generate heat. So what that means is these data centers also need significant cooling systems to keep the servers from overheating. And that cooling can happen in a few different ways. So some data centers use really large air conditioning style systems. some use water-based cooling and the newer facilities might use more advanced methods when it comes to water-based cooling like liquid cooling and closed loop cooling. So liquid cooling basically means instead of using just fans and air conditioning to cool the servers, they use liquid to absorb

heat from the hottest computer chips and carry that heat away. Closed loop just means that the liquid is reused over and over instead of being used once and then disposed of. So it's It's almost like a car radiator, right? The liquid helps move heat out of the system so the machine doesn't overheat. And this method is especially used for AI chips because they tend to run hotter than traditional servers. Companies like Meta, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft, they've all kind of started using this closed loop cooling, which is a more modern approach because it saves a bit on water usage. They're still obviously using water, but it's just more efficient than the older or more water-intensive cooling methods. that would just use the water and then dispose of it or evaporate it and, you know, keep using more water.

This reuses the same water. So this is why there are concerns about both electricity and water, but we'll kind of dive into electricity first and then and then we'll take a look at the water concerns. When we look at the big picture, the U.S. Energy Information Administration says that electricity demand is expected to hit record highs in 2026 and 2027. And this is not only because of data centers. Okay, obviously this is affected by things like population growth, economic activity, manufacturing, electric cars, etc. But the EIA says that these data centers are playing a pretty big part in that increase. The EIA has also said that this could be the strongest four-year growth in U.S. electricity demand

since 2000. And it's projecting electricity use to grow by 1% in 2026 and 3% in 2027. And again, a lot of that is attributed to these data centers, but not entirely attributed to. Now, electricity is not finite. Okay, we can always generate more electricity. What we can't do is generate and deliver unlimited electricity instantly. So the issue here isn't whether electricity can be created. It's whether the grid can generate, transmit, and deliver enough electricity at the exact moment that people need it.

The grid has to produce and move power in real time. And if demand is growing too fast and the grade can't handle it, that's when, you know, new power plants might need to be built or maybe new transmission lines or new substations, new backup systems, things like that. Then the issue becomes, like if we have to build all of this new infrastructure, who pays for that? Is it the company building the data center? Is it the utility? Or does the cost get passed on to residents through higher electric bills? And that's one of the biggest debates right now, whether residents are being asked to, subsidize the cost of the upgrades. That's electricity. Then there's also water concern. So as we talked

about some of these data centers use water to cool their servers. And this has become especially controversial in drought prone areas. According to data from Mordor Intelligence, which is a market research firm, North American data centers used nearly one trillion liters of water in 2025, which is roughly the same amount of water that New York City uses in a year. In Texas, researchers say data centers currently use less than 1% of the state's water, but could account for up to 9% by 2040 if the growth continues. What's interesting about this controversy, though, is the politics. So typically we see issues that are pretty clearly split along party lines, but that's not necessarily the case here. It's not as neatly split because you have some

conservatives that are concerned about things like property rights, local control, taxpayer subsidies, things like that. And then you have some liberals that are concerned about things like, you know, the environment, water, energy costs, government incentives for private companies. So you have opposition on both sides. And then on the other side, you know, on the on the support side, you have local and state officials who very much support these new facilities because they can bring in significant tax revenue. They can create more jobs. It's an investment in the area. You also have support from construction unions, energy companies, utilities, certain business groups and economic development organizations. The data center developers, of course, support it.

And then, of course, the tech companies themselves. So this isn't necessarily a partisan issue like we typically see. Now, when it comes to local and state officials being at odds with residents, okay, there are a few good examples. So Wisconsin is a good example in Port Washington. The city had approved this tax break for a data center project and the residents got really upset with it. And they pushed back on it. And ultimately the voters approved a referendum that basically said the city cannot approve deals like that without asking the voters first. The voters have to approve it first.

And then you guys have probably heard about what's going on in Utah. I know a handful of you have written into me asking me to talk about this project specifically. So in Box Elder County, Utah, there's this AI Data Center project called Stratos. It's backed by Kevin O'Leary. Earlier this month, county commissioners approved a resolution giving the military installation development authority or MITA consent to create the Stratos project area, which just means county commissioners gave the state agency permission to create the official zone where the Stratos project would happen.

That's, of course, different than, you know, like the building permits and construction plans and all of that actually being finalized. So the Stratus project area is roughly 40,000 acres, which is twice the size of Manhattan. But a 40,000 acre project area means the land on which the data centers will be built is a 40,000 acre parcel. Okay. So it's not a 40,000 acre data center. According to the county's website, quote, the project area encompasses approximately 40,000 acres of privately held vacant land split into three different sites. One is intended to support large-scale energy generation and a data center, with two additional sites planned for future uses that may include manufacturing,

retail, restaurants, hotels, and public works infrastructure. These future development areas are also where MITA anticipates the creation of an estimated 2,000-plus jobs associated with the project. And quote. So according to the county, the project area is made up of privately held vacant land. And MITA has reported through its own internal documents that each private landowner involved in this has given their consent. Now, Midas, some of you might be wondering what that is. It's a Utah state entity that was created to support military-related development and defense infrastructure. So in this case, state officials are saying that the project is tied to energy resilience and computing power and national security needs. and therefore, MIDA is playing a role. But as expected, this project has gotten backlash over pretty much everything we've talked about in this conversation. Power usage, water usage, air quality, local control, whether public incentives should be

used to support private AI infrastructure. So we'll talk about the power front first. Developers have said that this project will not impact the power grid and will not have any impact on utility bills. critics, though, are still worried about the project's environmental impact. So there's one analysis that's being cited by critics that was done by a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Utah. And he says that if this project is built out to nine gigawatts and uses natural gas, it would increase the carbon dioxide emissions for the state of Utah by more than 50%. He says this is an upper estimate,

assuming the power plant will run 24 hours a day, seven days a week. So a couple of things to note here. Number one, despite this professor's estimate, there still isn't a definitive environmental impact analysis available. Number two, according to Utah's official project FAQ, this project is supposed to generate its own power on site rather than pulling the electricity from Utah's existing grid. Box Elder County's fact sheet says Stratos would produce the power it needs on site using natural gas from the nearby Ruby pipeline. So it wouldn't necessarily use existing electricity, but it would add to the state's carbon emissions because of the pull from the pipeline and just like how the data center is powered. How much it would increase the state's carbon emissions

is yet to be officially determined. Then there's the water controversy. So Utah is already dealing with concerns over drought. So critics are worrying that this project is only going to make things worse. Supporters of the project, though, have said there's misinformation around the project, and the project will be using that closed loop cooling we talked about, so it reuses water instead of constantly pulling new water from local sources like the Great Salt Lake. But that's the deal with the Utah project, and really just data centers generally.

The Utah project is making more headlines. but that's the general theme of what's going on across the country and the new data centers popping up and the arguments on both sides. So the debate isn't really over whether data centers, you know, are needed. We literally need them and we very much so rely on them. The debate is more so over, you know, how fast should they be built, where should they go, who should be paying for the infrastructure, how much say should the local communities have, things like that. And we'll actually revisit the story once we get to critical thinking. But for now, we're going to take our second and final break.

And when we come back, we'll talk about some updates out of the Supreme Court. And then we'll finish with quick hitters and critical thinking. Welcome back. There are some updates out of the Supreme Court that we have to talk about. So there's two updates from last week and then a few from today. We'll start with the ones from last week, specifically this one dealing with Mifiphristone, which is, of course, one of the two drugs commonly used in medication abortions. Last week, the court said that Miffraestone can continue to be prescribed through telehealth

and sent through the mail while the legal fight continues. So this was not a final ruling on whether Miffipristone or other abortion medication must always be available by mail. This was a temporary order that keeps the status quo, keeps the current rules in place while the case moves forward. Two justices did dissent from this decision, and those justices were Justice Thomas and Justice Alito. Justice Thomas pointed to the Comstock Act, which is this federal law from the

1800s that restricts the mailing or shipping of certain abortion-related drugs and materials. So his argument was basically, look, even if the FDA says Miffipristone, you know, can be sent by mail under its own rules, this other federal mailing law might actually prohibit it. And then you had Justice Alito, who essentially argued that the court's order interferes with states like Louisiana who are trying to enforce their abortion laws after the court's decision in Dobbs. So again, the Supreme Court did not decide the merits of this case. the case still has to continue in the Fifth Circuit, and depending on how the Fifth Circuit rules, it'll most likely come back to the Supreme Court.

Also last week, the Supreme Court rejected Virginia's emergency request to reinstate its new congressional map. That denial leaves in place a Virginia Supreme Court ruling that blocked the map over state law procedural issues. So that means Virginia's elections are currently set to proceed under the existing congressional districts. And if you're interested in hearing more about that lawsuit, I did cover it in great detail in last Monday's episode. All right. And then these next few updates out of the court are updates from this morning. So today was an order day for the Supreme Court, which means that the court released basically like a list of case related updates, things like which appeals it'll take, which appeals it's rejecting, which cases it's going to send back to the lower courts. It's different from an opinion day where the justices release full written rulings. So first, the court sent two voting rights cases back to lower courts after its recent Louisiana redistricting decision. One of those cases involves North Dakota.

The other one involves Mississippi. So by remanding these cases to the lower courts, the court is essentially telling the lower courts to take another look at the cases in light of the court's recent decision regarding Louisiana's congressional map. Now, Justice Jackson dissented in both of these cases. She said that these cases raise a whole different issue than the Louisiana case raised. She said that these cases ask whether private parties can sue under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. And she said the Louisiana decision didn't even answer that question. And therefore, there was no reason to send the cases back. Another update from this morning, the court granted review in a case that's asking whether employees at federally funded schools can sue under Title IX for sex discrimination in employment.

So Title IX is typically talked about in the context of students, sports, school program, sexual harassment, things like that. But this case is actually about employees, so coaches, professors, et cetera. In this case, a former women's basketball coach at Georgia Tech was fired for what she says raising concerns that the women's program was receiving fewer resources than the men's basketball program. And she said she was fired despite being the winningest coach in program history. The university, however, pointed to an. internal investigation into her coaching behavior. But the question for the court, the Supreme Court here, is whether Title IX gives employees of federally funded educational institutions a private right of action to sue for sex discrimination in employment. And then the last update from

this morning, the Supreme Court declined to hear several challenges from pharmaceutical companies over Medicare's drug price negotiation program. So this is a program that was created in the 2020, inflation reduction act. It basically allows Medicare to negotiate prices for certain high cost prescription drugs because for years, Medicare wasn't allowed to negotiate prices for most prescription drugs. But the drug companies obviously don't like this program. They don't want to have to negotiate, but they're basically arguing that this isn't really a real negotiation because if they refuse to participate in the program, they can face penalties or lose access to federal health programs. Their argument was basically that, you know, the government's forcing them to accept

government set prices. The government's argument, though, was that Medicare is a federal program, and if drug companies want to sell through Medicare, then Congress can set the rules for how the program pays for certain drugs. So because the Supreme Court did not take this case, the lower court ruling will remain in place, and the Medicare drug price negotiation program will continue. All right, now for some quick hitters. Former Epstein jail guard, Tova, Noelle testified before the House Oversight Committee today about the night Jeffrey Epstein died in federal custody in 2019. Noel and another guard have already admitted that they failed to make the required prisoner checks the day before Epstein's death and falsified records after Epstein was found dead in his cell the next morning. Her testimony took place behind closed doors today.

A person in Colorado has died after contracting hauntavirus, but officials say the case is not connected. to the recent cruise ship outbreak. Officials believe the person was likely exposed locally through rodents since the Sin Nomebrae hauntivirus is carried by deer mice and occurs regularly in Colorado, especially in the spring and summer. Houth officials say the risk to the general public remains low, but they are reminding people to avoid contact with rodent droppings, urine, saliva, and nesting materials. By the way, we're all talking about hontovirus right now because of the cruise ship, but according to the CDC, there are on average about 10 hontovirus deaths in the United States each year.

A New York judge ruled that prosecutors can use the alleged gun and notebook found in Luigi Mangione's backpack at his upcoming state murder trial in the killing of United Health Care CEO Brian Thompson. However, the judge did suppress other items found in Mangione's backpack like a magazine, cell phone, passport, wallet, and computer chip. And I do just want to flesh this one out a little bit more because it's kind of confusing why are certain items from the backpack allowed and not others. So when Mangione was initially caught at the McDonald's in Pennsylvania,

police went ahead and started to search his belongings, including his backpack. This was an illegal search because police did not have a warrant. Okay. So then when they took him to the police station, they searched the backpack again, and that's when they found the gun in the notebook. So basically what the judge said at today's hearing is that first search at the McDonald's was illegal. and therefore anything found during that for search cannot be used at trial.

But the second search at the police station was legal. And therefore, the things found during that search can be used at trial. So that's why some things are allowed. Some things are not allowed. Mangione's state trial is scheduled to start in September. Two U.S. Navy jets collided and crashed Sunday during an air show at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho. Fortunately, all four crew members did safely eject and they are in stable condition. However, the rest of the air show was canceled and the Navy is investigating what caused the crash.

A Pakistani source says Iran shared a revised proposal with the United States to end the conflict. Pakistan, by the way, is serving as the mediator in all of this. The Pakistani source gave no details of the revised proposal, but when asked if it would take time to close gaps, the source said that both countries keep changing their goalposts and, quote, we don't have much time. Iran's previous proposal reportedly focused first on ending the conflict and reopening the Strait of Hormuz while pushing nuclear talks to a later stage. But President Trump said that was unacceptable because any deal needs to address Iran's nuclear capabilities up front.

And a federal jury ruled against Elon Musk in his lawsuit against OpenAI after only 90 minutes of deliberation, finding that Musk's claims were filed too late under the statute of limitations. Musk had accused OpenAI, Sam Altman, and Greg. Brockman of straying from the company's original nonprofit mission and sought major changes to Open AI's structure. Notably, the jury in this case did serve in an advisory capacity rather than having the final say, but the judge did indicate that her decision would align with the juries. Okay, we're going to finish with some critical thinking. Keep in mind, the segment is not meant to be too challenging. It's just supposed to get you thinking deeper about certain issues and test your

existing opinions. As I warned you earlier in the episode, we were going to revisit the whole conversation about data centers. So let's focus on that. So first consider that if you have a phone, you are probably using data centers all day, every day without even realizing it. You wake up and check your email, data center. You open Instagram, data center. You use ways to get somewhere, data center. You Venmo someone for coffee, you get home from a long day and you put on Netflix, you back up your pictures to your iCloud, maybe you ask chat GBT to help you write an email. All of this uses data centers. Okay.

So taking your everyday actions into consideration, here's my question. How much responsibility do you think you have to accept the physical infrastructure that makes your everyday possible? In other words, is it fair to want the convenience of our, you know, modern everyday technology without wanting the things that come with it, like the buildings and the power lines and the water systems and the carbon emissions and all these things that support it. Whether your answer is yes or no, I want you to think a little deeper and ask yourself why your answer is what it is. And then my second question for you is this. Should data centers be treated like normal private developments where a private company is just, you know, building something for its own business like a mall, a hotel, a warehouse, etc. or should they be treated more like critical infrastructure where the public has a bigger stake,

things like hospitals, airports, power plants, that's critical infrastructure. Because on one hand, these are private companies building facilities to support their own businesses, but on the other hand, we now rely on data centers for just about everything. So if we all depend on them, should it be easier to build them? Or should it mean more rules, more transparency, more say for the people who live nearby? that's what I have for you. Thank you so much for being here. As always, have a fantastic next couple of days and I will talk to you again on Thursday.