UNBIASED - May 21, 2026: Is the Government Prohibited From Ever Prosecuting Trump? Here's What You Need to Know About the Latest Portion of the Trump/IRS Settlement Agreement.

Episode Date: May 21, 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: Here's What You Need to Know About the Trump/IRS Settlement (0:11) First Lawsuit Filed Challenging New Anti-Weaponization Fund (~24:44) Acting AG Todd Blanche Testifies Before Senate About Anti-Weaponization Fund (~30:40) What We Know About the Shooting at the Islamic Center of San Diego (~35:07) Quick Hitters (~40:24) Critical Thinking Segment (~42:26) ⁠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 21st. Let's talk about some news. First, we, of course, have to talk about what remains to be the biggest news story of the week, and that is the settlement between Trump and the IRS. Now, I want to start by talking about the word settlement because I've had a few people say on social media, you know, stop referring to it as a settlement. This is not a settlement. I don't know where that is coming from, but I do want to talk about it because in the law, a settlement is a voluntary agreement, right, that resolves a dispute between two opposing parties, or it doesn't have to be two opposing parties, but resolves a dispute

between opposing parties. And it happens outside of a full court trial. So let's say you sue your boss, okay, a settlement would be your boss agreeing to certain terms in exchange for you dismissing the suit. In this case, it was the IRS and the DOJ agreeing to apologize to Trump, set up this anti-weaponization fund, and release him from certain past tax-related claims in exchange for the dismissal of the suit. Now, some people have said, well, the case was already dismissed by the judge because there was no merit to the lawsuit. So this actually is not a proper settlement. And that's not necessarily what happened here. So on Monday, we talked about how this lawsuit was on shaky footing from the get-go, right?

I've actually been talking about this since the lawsuit was filed back in February. Not only was there a question of whether a sitting president could sue the very agencies that he oversees, but there was also this question about whether the statute of limitations had run. And if you do want to hear more about those questions, you can go ahead and tune into Monday's episode. But essentially, the judge here raised concerns about those issues. And she specifically, she was more so concerned with the sitting president suing the agencies that he oversees. It presented a potential jurisdiction problem. And that's really where most of her concern lied.

So she had, she had both parties submit their reasons for why this case should be allowed to proceed despite those concerns. She set a deadline of May 22nd, I believe it was. Then the Trumps filed their voluntary dismissal before the parties went ahead and submitted their reasons why this lawsuit should proceed. So once the Trumps filed their voluntary dismissal, the judge issued an order that said, yeah, court rules allow a plaintiff to walk away from a lawsuit. Now, she again raised the same concerns that she had earlier about the judge. jurisdiction issue, but the case was not dismissed because it was deemed to be without merit. The judge actually had not ruled on the merits at all. She raised concerns, but she had not issued a final ruling on the merits. In order to rule on the merits, you have to hear arguments from both sides,

but that had not happened yet. So yes, the judge dismissed this case on Monday because the Trumps had asked the court to dismiss it. That's different than saying, you know, the case was dismissed because there's no merits to the plaintiff's claims. Maybe there is no merit to the plaintiff's claims, but that's not what happened here. Okay, so that is that. Now let's back up a little bit because I actually want to walk through the timeline of what has taken place here because that will give you the full context as to the issues that were presented in this case and sort of why this lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed. Back in February, Donald Trump, Eric Trump, Donald Trump, and the Trump organization filed this lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed against the IRS over the

leak of their private tax return information. And in April, the parties then filed this joint motion requesting a 90-day pause. They basically said, hey, we're going to try to settle this outside of court. So let's just pause the case for 90 days. And the judge said, yeah, no, no, no, we're not going to do that. Okay. I actually want you guys to go ahead and tell me whether the court can even hear this case because it may very well be outside of the court's jurisdiction due to the fact that the sitting president is suing the agencies that he oversees. So go ahead and get those briefs to me by like actually it was May 20th. May 20th was the deadline. Not the 22nd. It was the 20th. About a week before that deadline, a panel of court appointed legal experts. Okay, these were

experts appointed by the judge in this case to analyze the jurisdictional questions. That panel came to the determination that this matter was, quote, unprecedented. Okay. So the panel wrote, quote, a sitting press president seeks monetary damages for alleged harm to his personal interests from an executive agency that he controls. That presents significant Article 3 subject matter jurisdiction concerns, end quote. So the panel essentially told the judge, yeah, there is a real question as to jurisdiction here because normally a lawsuit requires. two sides that are truly opposed to one another. But in this case, President Trump is suing agencies that he has authority over. That's not the same thing as the judge coming to her own

determination, okay, but it's certainly an analysis that the judge would have weighed pretty heavily had she gotten the opportunity to come to a decision. So that was about a week before the deadline for those briefs ordered by the judge, and then two days before the May 20th deadline, the Trumps filed that notice a voluntary dismissal. The dismissal that was filed invokes a federal rule of civil procedure that allows a plaintiff to unilaterally dismiss a lawsuit if the defendant has not yet served an answer. So in this case, the Trump's filing said that because the defendants had not yet filed an answer, this dismissal was. within their rights. And the judge said, yeah, the dismissal is within your rights and went ahead and

granted that dismissal. And just to quickly touch on the term settlement again, because that is the term I will be using throughout this discussion, you can still settle a case once it's been dismissed. Dismissal, settlement can happen after dismissal. So that's not an issue either. But now that we're all caught up there, let's talk about the terms of this particular settlement. We already covered the basics of the anti-weaponization fund on Monday, so I'm not really going to dive into the specifics of that too much. But I will answer some questions that I was not able to get to on Monday. The first question is, will the recipients of this fund be kept secret? Possibly.

And I'll explain why I say possibly in a minute. But there are three sections of this settlement agreement that speak to potential confidentiality. So section E under composition and office. of the anti-weaponization fund says, quote, on a quarterly basis or otherwise as directed by the attorney general, the anti-weaponization fund shall provide to the attorney general a confidential written report that includes the names and address of each claimant who has received relief, and if so, the nature of such relief, end quote. But then the next section right under that says, quote, the DOJ or a third party contractor of the agency as designated by the attorney general may

audit the claims submitted, end quote. Then when you skip ahead a little bit, section F under limitations on claims says, quote, the anti-weaponization fund shall take reasonable steps to protect private, personal, and financial information submitted to them under this settlement agreement, end quote. So based on those sections, the recipients certainly wouldn't be automatically public. Their names would be reported confidentially to the attorney general and they could be reviewed in an audit. Now, let's say an inspector general audits the fund and goes ahead and writes a public report. That report could discuss the fund, how much money was paid, whether claims were properly handled, whether there were problems, etc. but individual recipient names could still be redacted for privacy reasons.

Because keep in mind as well, like there are federal laws in place that prohibit the government from releasing personal information. The Privacy Act, for example, prohibits agencies from disclosing personal records without, you know, an individual's consent. There are exceptions there. But generally speaking, the federal government can't just go ahead and disclose information about a person without that person's consent. Now, Blanche did speak to this briefly in his testimony on Tuesday, which we'll cover in more detail

later in the episode. But basically, Senator Collins asked him whether the information related to the claims would be made public. And his response was, quote, there's privacy laws that exists. So I don't want to sit here today and say every scintilla of data collected will be released. But I mean, of course, of course, there's accountability that the commission has a quarterly report that has to come to an attorney general, which will certainly be public. There's a process that you all will get information and there's a FOIA process. So I very much anticipate that the claims that are awarded, the basis and the amount will for sure be made public along the way.

And quote. So he says, of course, he also says that that report to the attorney general is going to be public, but obviously the actual settlement agreement, as I read to you, says that that's a confidential report. So a little bit of conflicting information here. We don't really know. Only time we'll tell here. That's just the reality of the situation.

The other question I got was, is this fund taxpayer funded? Yes. In Monday's episode, I talked about how the money for the fund would be coming from the judgment fund. The judgment fund is funded by taxpayer dollars. Now, before we move on to the latest update regarding the addendum to the settlement, I do need to make a correction to the last episode. I think I said that the president will appoint the members who oversee the fund, but I actually misread the agreement.

So the five members who oversee the fund, the commissioners, will be appointed by the attorney general. One of those members will be chosen in consultation with congressional leadership. The president can remove members with or without cause, but the attorney general is who appoints them. Okay. Now let's talk about this addendum. So the addendum was filed yesterday and I'm going to read you exactly what it says and then I'm going to dumb it down a bit because there is way too much legalese in there for my liking. It is just, I mean, this is the law, but it's just too much. Okay. So here we go. This is what it says. Quote, the United States releases waves, acquits and forever discharges each of the plaintiffs from and is hereby, forever barred and precluded from prosecuting or pursuing any and all claims, counterclaims, causes of action, appeals, or requests for relief, whether presently known or unknown, that as of the effective date of the settlement agreement, have been or could have been

asserted by defendants against any of the plaintiffs or related or affiliated individuals or parties, including trusts, parent, sister, or related companies, affiliates, and subsidiaries. By reason of, with respect to, in connection with, or which arise out of, one, any matters that were raised or could have been raised in the case of the pending agency claims, two, lawfare and or weaponization, or three, any matters currently pending or that could be pending, including tax return, filed before the effective date before defendants or other agencies or departments. That was one sentence, okay? And, you know, people ask me why I'm not a lawyer anymore. There you go. Anyway, this is basically a very broad release. So the government is essentially saying we're not only

ending this lawsuit, we're also going to give up certain claims that we might have had against Trump, his sons, related people, trusts, affiliates, other related individuals, his daughters, businesses, parent companies, sister companies, subsidiaries. So the government is agreeing that it is forever prohibited from bringing any claims against Trump and the aforementioned people and entities that it could have brought at any point before this settlement was reached, even if the government does not currently know about claims. and finds out about them later. What I want to be clear about, though, is that this does not apply to future acts, right? This applies only to claims or matters that existed or pending or could

have been brought as of the settlement date, whether known or not. So let's say, hypothetically, it's 2030 and the IRS tries to go after Trump, the Trump organization, or one of the aforementioned people or entities over a tax issue tied to a 2021 federal tax return. Per this release, Trump's lawyers would almost certainly argue the IRS cannot do that because the release specifically covers tax returns filed before the settlement date of May 18th, 2026. But let's say hypothetically, it's 2030 and the IRS tries to go after Trump, the Trump organization, or one of the aforementioned people or entities over a tax issue tied a 2027 return. That is fair game because that would be future conduct and not a claim that

existed or could have existed when this settlement was signed. Okay. So I want to take our first break here. I want to give you some time to just like digest everything that we just talked about. I feel like it was a lot of legal, you know, just legal things. When we come back, we'll finish this discussion. I have a viral video that a lot of you sent me. I want to talk about it. So there's still more to discuss. Welcome back. What I want to do now is address this viral video because a ton of you sent it to me. And I want to provide some added context. So a former DOJ pardon attorney who goes by lawyer, lawyer on social media posted this video. And I want you to really listen to what she's explaining. And then once it's done, I'll discuss it. And I will say the objective claims that she makes are true.

However, there's some important context to add as well. So here it is. Hey, everybody. I have some news and it's not good. The Justice Department's settlement with Donald Trump is even worse than we knew. It turns out there was a secret part of the agreement that was hidden from us when it was announced yesterday. I just reviewed it and I am struggling to find words to tell you how catastrophic and corrupt it is. I'm Liz Oyer, the former pardon attorney for the Department of Justice. Here's the deal. Todd Blanche, in his official capacity as acting attorney general, signed this one-page document right here. It's called a release of claims. And here's what it does. It signs away all claims against Donald Trump on behalf of the United States. In other words, it says that Trump cannot be investigated, audited, or sued by the United States government in the future. That includes any government agency, the Justice Department, the IRS, etc. In effect, this will end the ongoing audits of Trump and his companies. But that's not all. It forfeits our right to collect any taxes owed by Trump and his business. businesses. It waives our right to try to reclaim the money he stole from taxpayers. It gives up our right to sue him for damages or to pursue really any legal recourse whatsoever against Donald Trump. And it binds the United States forever, meaning it applies even after Trump and Blanche leave office. And it's actually even worse than that because it's not limited to just Donald Trump. It also signs away all of our claims against his companies, his family members, and his associates. This is a very.

is a staggering betrayal of the public trust. Even compared to other bad acts by this administration, this one stands out as especially unforgivably corrupt. All right. So like I said, her broad reading is supported by the language of the release, right? But there are important caveats. And I also just want to say, I feel like I have to say this. I wish I didn't, but I feel like I have to say this. whenever I add context to things, I feel as though sometimes some people take it as discreditation when that's not at all what I'm doing. My goal is not to discredit at all. I've said her objective claims in this video are true. My goal is to be as precise as possible about what we know because that's ultimately how we become the most informed, right? We have to have all of the context. And I just want you to be as

informed as possible. I understand there's some people out there that just don't want the context. That's okay. But I know, you know, 99% of you listening do very much want the context. And that's what I'm here to do. So let's do it. We'll go claim by claim. And we will stick to the objective claims that are made. And here's what it does. It signs away all claims against Donald Trump on behalf of the United States. This is true with the context that it signs away all claims against Trump on behalf of the United States for claims or matters that either existed or pending or could have been brought as of the settlement date, May 18, 2026. It does not sign away claims for actions taken after May 18, 26. In other words, it says that Trump cannot be investigated, audited,

or sued by the United States government in the future. Again, true. The agreement does say that Trump cannot be investigated, audited, or sued by the United States. United States government in the future. But again, it doesn't insulate him from liability for future acts. It's saying he can't be investigated, audited, or sued by the United States government in the future for acts prior to the settlement date of May 18, 2026. That includes any government agency, the Justice Department, the IRS, etc. This is also true. The agreement applies to the federal government as a whole, the United States specifically. That includes any government agency, including but not limited to the DOJ and IRS.

In effect, this will end the ongoing audits of Trump and his companies. True. This will end all ongoing audits of Trump and his companies. But that's not all. It forfeits our right to collect any taxes owed by Trump and his businesses. It is true that it forfeits our right to collect any taxes owed by Trump and his businesses, assuming there are taxes owed. It waives our right to try to reclaim the money he stole from taxpayers. Now, this one would only be true if there were unpaid taxes, penalties, or other money that he owed the government

that we would otherwise be able to recover. I'm not aware of a final public finding that Donald Trump personally stole money from taxpayers through his federal tax returns. But if that were to be true or it's found to be true at a later date, then yes, the agreement waves are right to try to reclaim that money. Now, there has been a tax fraud conviction involving the Trump organization in New York. However, that assessed fine is still very much recoverable because that was a state case, not a federal case. This agreement only borrows the United States. State prosecutors are not bound by this agreement, so they can still reclaim any penalties assessed as a result of a failure to pay taxes. It gives up our right to sue him for damages

or to pursue really any legal recourse whatsoever against Donald Trump. Again, true. For claims matters that either existed or pending or could have been brought as of May 18th, 2026. He would still be on the hook for any acts taken after that date. And it binds the United States forever, meaning it applies even after Trump and Blanche leave office. True. For claims or matters that either existed or pending or could have been brought as of May 18, 2026. He would still be on the hook for any acts taken after that date. And it's actually even worse than that because it's not limited to just Donald Trump. It also signs away. all of our claims against his companies, his family members, and his associates.

True. This agreement signs away all of the government's claims against his companies, his family members, and his associates for actions taken before May 18, 2026. So again, just to be very clear, the objective claims that she made are true. However, those little caveats are important because I do want you to understand the full scope of what this means. Now, there are a few pretty important outstanding questions, and because this will almost certainly be challenged in the courts. A court will answer some of those questions. Specifically, the court is going to have to look at the legality of precluding the entire federal government, even though the underlying lawsuit was against specific federal defendants and not every single

agency across the federal government. The court's going to have to look at whether the agreement precludes the federal government from pursuing civil and criminal cases, or if it's just civil cases since the case at hand was a civil case. The court's going to look at whether the, or I can't say definitively the court will look at, but one of the potential things the court will look at is whether the federal government can be quote unquote forever barred. Another potential issue is whether the DOJ even has the authority to waive the federal government's ability to audit, examine, collect, or pursue tax claims involving past returns, especially on behalf of other agencies like the IRS. There's also a question.

question as to whether the DOJ has the authority to protect not just the plaintiffs in this case, but also Trump's companies, family members, and associates. And then of course, you have the question of whether there are conflicts of interest here, given the fact that the sitting president oversees the agencies he entered into this agreement with and the fact that the acting attorney general who signed off on this agreement was the president's former personal attorney, both of those raised the possibility of a conflict that a court might have to seriously take a look at. Okay, now let's quickly talk about this lawsuit that was filed yesterday challenging the new anti-weaponization fund because it is the first lawsuit of its kind. So this is a lawsuit filed by two

police officers who were present at the Capitol on January 6th. Plaintiff Harry Dunn served from 2008 until his retirement in 2023. And plaintiff Daniel Hodges is an active officer of the Metropolitan Police Department. He's been there since 2014. They're suing President Trump, acting attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Besson. Why? Well, obviously, the president is the president. He was involved in this lawsuit and a party to the settlement. Acting Attorney General Blanche is the one who signed off on the creation of the fund, and he would be the one appointing the five commissioners. And then Treasury Secretary Besson would be the one who oversees the transfer of the $1.776 billion to the fund. There are four main.

legal challenges in the lawsuit plus a declaratory judgment count, which we'll talk about in a minute. But the first count claims that the creation of the anti-weaponization fund violates federal law, specifically the Administrative Procedure Act because the DOJ allegedly had no statutory authority to create a new federal payout program, create a commission to run it, recognize new lawfare or weaponization claims, or transfer federal money to, claimants. The second one claims that funding the fund through the judgment fund is illegal, because according to the plaintiffs, the judgment fund can only be used to pay real judgments or legitimate settlements against the United States. And they argue that Trump's lawsuit against

the IRS was not the kind of valid adversarial case that could lawfully be settled this way. The third count claims that the fund violates the 14th Amendment, because a could be used to pay debts or obligations connected to January 6th defendants. So there's the section of the 14th Amendment. It's a lesser known section, but it's a post-Civil War provision. And it says that the United States cannot pay any debt or obligation that was incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States. And the plaintiffs here are arguing that this provision bars the federal government from providing

any compensation to anyone charged in connection with January 6th. And then the fourth count is this backup argument that says that even if the Administrative Procedure Act doesn't apply, Blanche and Bessence still acted beyond their legal authority by creating and funding the program. And then, as I mentioned, the lawsuit also seeks what's called declaratory judgment, which is basically asking the court to declare that certain things are illegal. So this includes things like the actual creation of the fund. And then Blanche and Bessent's certification of the payment for the fund. And in addition to that, the plaintiffs are asking the court to dissolve or set aside the fund, as well as reverse any transfer that might have

already happened and block any payments from being made. So from here, the government will have to respond, which will most likely be in the form of a motion to dismiss. And then the court will have to decide whether the plaintiffs have the requisite standing to, you know, bring this lawsuit in the first place, and also whether the plaintiff's claims are plausible on their face. If both of those questions are answered in the affirmative, this lawsuit can proceed. But if either of those questions are answered in the negative, the lawsuit will be dismissed. Keep in mind, though, this is the first lawsuit challenging the fund. It's most likely not the last. So I'm sure we'll have a lot of lawsuits to talk through in the coming weeks and months. Let's take our second and final

break here. When we come back, we'll talk about Blanche's testimony, as well as the shooting at the San Diego mosque. And then we'll finish with quick hitters and critical thinking. Welcome. back. One more story related to the Trump IRS settlement and then I promise we will move on. On Tuesday, acting attorney general Blanche testified before a Senate Appropriations Committee that testimony was supposed to be related to the DOJ's 2027 budget request, which was $41.2 billion, about a 13% increase from the previous year. But for a good portion of the hearing, senators questioned him on this new anti-weaponization fund and the Trump IRS settlement. So, let's talk about just a few notable moments from the hearing. We're obviously not going to cover the whole thing, but I do want to touch on some highlights. Overall, Blanche's stance was that, yes, this is, you know, the fund is unusual, but it's not unprecedented. He repeatedly compared the fund to the Keeps Eagle case, which we talked about on Monday. As I said on Monday, the Keeps Eagle case is what the DOJ is comparing this fund to. There are certainly similarities and differences, though the two are not as similar.

as the administration is making them out to be. If you want to hear more on that analysis, go ahead and tune into Monday's episode. Multiple senators on both sides of the aisle pointed to the biggest difference between this fund and the keeps Eagle Fund, which is that the Keeps Eagle settlement was approved by a federal court. This one was not. So Senator Chris Van Hollen, he's a Democrat from Maryland. He was pretty confrontational on this point.

He said, quote, I think you know full well that the Keeps Eagle settlement was approved, by a federal judge, including payments to people not originally parties to the lawsuit. No federal judge has approved this fund, have they, Mr. Attorney General? And, quote, and Blanche acknowledged that no federal judge had approved this new program, but he said he didn't think that made a major difference because in his view, the court in Keepsiegel did not handle the actual administration of the money. It was a commission that handled the administration of the money similar to the commission with this new anti-weaponization fund.

Van Hollen called Blanche's comparison to Keep Segal, quote, incredibly deceptive, end quote. Senator Chris Coons, he is a Democrat from Delaware. He also challenged the Keep Segal comparison. He asked whether Keep Segal involved a president suing his own government and settling before a judge could review or approve it. Blanche said no, but argued that what he was comparing in Keep Segal is the structure of the commission, not the underlying lawsuit. Senator Van Hollen also pressed Blanche on whether January 6th defendants, especially people accused or convicted of assaulting police officers could be eligible for the fund. Blanche responded that anybody in the country can apply if they believe they were a victim of weaponization. He said he expected rules to be created by the commission.

He didn't know what they would be, but he did not commit to categorically excluding January 6th defendants. Then Senator Coons asked whether anyone convicted of assaulting. a police officer would be barred from receiving money. Blanche again declined to make that commitment. He said anybody can apply and the commissioners will be the ones that set the rules. Senator Susan Collins, a Republican of Maine, she questioned the legal basis for using the Treasury's judgment fund to pay claims that had not yet been brought, especially where the fund was created from the settlement of a different case. And her question was basically, you know, has the DOJ ever used the judgment fund this way before to pay future claims based on the settlement of an unrelated

case. And Blanche said the answer to that question was yes. He again pointed to the Keeps-Eagle settlement saying that that case also involved a fund. It applied to claims that had not been brought yet and had a claims process to distribute money. He acknowledged the Trump fund was quote-unquote unusual, but he said it was not unprecedented. Collins then asked how the commission would decide who is eligible and how much money they would get. Blanche said, said people would voluntarily apply if they believe they were victims of weaponization, and then it would be up to the five commissioners to review the claims and the relief could range from a formal apology to monetary compensation. Notably, after that exchange,

Colin said she did not support the proposed fund. She cited the fact that no court had approved the settlement agreement. And I do have that full testimony linked for you in the sources section for this episode, which you can always find in the show notes. Okay. Final story of the day, right after I finished recording Monday's episode, news broke of a shooting at a mosque in San Diego. Since then, we have learned a lot about the incident, the victims, and the suspects. So let's walk through what we know. We know that on Monday at 9.42 a.m. local time, police received a 911 call from the mother of one of the perpetrators. The mother told 911 operators that her son was missing, that he was suicidal, and that several of her firearms

were missing. She told operators that he was driving a white 2018 BMWX1 and was last seen wearing camo. Exactly two hours later at 1143 a.m. local time. And as police were actually trying to talk with the mother to figure out where her son might be, they had reached out to the high school that he went to, warning them that he, you know, he might be going there. there were they were in talks with the mom figuring out where her son might be when police received reports about a shooting at the Islamic Center of San Diego. It's also the largest mosque in San Diego County. Outside the mosque, a security guard named Amin Abdullah was the first to be targeted. He engaged the shooters. He actually struck one of the shooters in gunfire. But he unfortunately died. He was able to radio to the people inside the building to lock down the building because actually, inside the building were teachers and about 140 students. San Diego Police Chief Scott Wall said the

shooter then entered the mosque after killing Abdullah and moved room to room. However, the shooters were lured out of the building by two men who were in the parking lot. Those men had already called 911. The two men were unfortunately killed by the shooters, but they were able to contact 911. One of the men was a teacher named Nadir Awad. The other. was a handyman and caretaker named Monsor Kazeeha. Kizia had worked at the mosque since it was built in the 80s. Police arrived on scene about four minutes after they received the call about the shooter. They arrived on scene at about 1147 a.m.

That's when they found the three men in the parking lot. And at the same time, they were getting reports of more gunfire a couple of blocks away. The suspects ended up driving, you know, a short distance from the mosque. and they actually carried out this drive-by shooting nearby. A landscaper was in someone's yard and they shot at him. Luckily, he's okay. But they shot at him and then fleed that scene around 1148 a.m. Shortly after that, the shooters were found dead inside the white BMW

about 0.3 miles away from the mosque. Police say that one of the gunmen had shot the other one twice in the head while they were both in the car and then shot himself. police have since identified the suspects as 17-year-old Kane Clark and 18-year-old Caleb Vasquez. Clark was from San Diego. He had lived there his whole life. He was a student and wrestler at James Madison High School. But according to the school district, he had been taking classes online since 2021. He was also just weeks away from graduating. Neighbors told a local news outlet that they had seen Clark just a few hours before the shooting. And, you know, he waved at them as he got into his car that day. They also described Clark's family as good neighbors. Social media accounts belonging to Clark allegedly included references to school shootings,

Nazi imagery, and a Confederate flag. Vasquez was from Chula Vista, where he had also lived for years. Neighbors also described his family as nice and said they had been part of the neighborhood for a long time. Chula Vista police reportedly had contact with Vasquez in 2025, though, after someone who knew him expressed concerns that he was interested in extremist ideology and mass casualty attacks. In executing search warrants, investigators have recovered more than 30 guns, ammunition, tactical gear, and what's being called a manifesto.

Mark Remily, the special agent in charge of the FBI in San Diego, said the manifesto outlines hatred towards many racism religions. He didn't provide details about what was in the writings, but he said it did not uniquely target Muslims or the Islamic Center of San Diego. ago, he said, quote, they definitely had a broad hatred towards a lot of folks, end quote, and that quote, these subjects didn't discriminate on who they hated, end quote. Three senior law enforcement officials have also said there's, there's the 75 page document they found that was posted online. That document expresses anti-Islamic, anti-Semitic and anti-LGB views and details their

motivations, though that document is still being authenticated, I believe. The author, of this document describe a man who carried out a mass shooting at a New Zealand mosque as a hero. So that is the 75 page document that was found online. In the car found at the scene, though, investigators say they found what they're calling possible anti-Islamic writings. So that's what we know about that. I'm sure more will come to light in the coming days. But that is the story there. Let's do a few quick hitters. The house passed a bipartisan housing of 40, affordability bill called the 21st century Road to Housing Act in a 396 to 13 vote. This is a bill that's meant to address high housing costs by encouraging more home construction, easing some regulations

for builders and manufactured housing, and restricting large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes. One of the biggest debates is over corporate landlords and build to rent homes. The House version of the bill would generally block groups. that already own more than 350 single-family homes from buying more existing homes, but it removed a stricter Senate provision that would have forced some large landlords to sell newly built rental homes after seven years. The Trump administration's EPA is proposing to roll back parts of a Biden-era drinking water rule for PFAs, also known as Forever Chemicals.

The proposal would eliminate limits on four types of PFAs, Gen X, PFAs, PFFHXS, PFNA, and PFBS, while keeping limits on two of the most common types, PFOA and PFOS, but giving water systems more time to comply. EPA officials say the change is meant to create a more legally durable rule and give water utilities more flexibility. Critics, though, argue that it weakens public health protections for chemicals that are linked to serious health risks. The proposal is expected to go through a public comment period.

before becoming final. Federal prosecutors in Miami have indicted former Cuban president, Raul Castro, and five others in connection with the 1996 shootdown of two unarmed planes operated by Brothers to the Rescue, which was a Miami-based Cuban exile group. The charges include conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals, four counts of murder, and aircraft destruction stemming from an incident that killed four people while Castro was Cuba's defense minister. All right. Now, unfortunately, I cannot squeeze rumor has it into today's episode, but we will do some critical thinking. And you already know for today's critical thinking

segment, we are going back to the Trump IRS settlement. We spent way too much time talking about it in today's episode to not revisit it. So that's what we're going to do. As a reminder, this segment is not meant to be too complex. It is not meant to stump you. It is just meant to challenge you a little bit and potentially get you thinking deeper about why you feel the way that you do. So my first question is this. How broad is too broad? Because, you know, settlements often include releases. That is normal. When two sides settle a lawsuit, they usually agree that, you know, certain claims are over and can't be brought again. But at what point does a release become too broad? I mean, there's obviously, you know, we talked about a lot that we talked about what this protects, what it doesn't protect, how it shields Trump. and other individuals, how it doesn't shield Trump and other individuals, you know, what agencies this applies to. So think about this settlement and the terms of this settlement and where you draw the line. And if you think the release is acceptable, why? What's the, what's the justification?

And if you think it's too broad, what specifically makes it too broad? Is it the number of people covered? Is it the agencies covered? Is it the unknown claims? Is it the fact that it could could bind future administrations, at what point does a settlement release cross over from acceptable to unacceptable? And then my second and final question, that was the first question was a long one. So this is my last question for you. What standard should apply to politically sensitive settlements? Because this settlement, as we talked about, was not approved by the court in a way that people might assume. And in ordinary civil cases, parties can often settle privately and voluntarily dismiss the case without a judge reviewing or approving every term. But should the standard be

different when the settlement involves the federal government or, you know, taxpayer dollars or future federal claims or a sitting president? Should there be some kind of independent court review before an agreement like this takes effect? And if your answer is yes, what should the standard be? If your answers no, what's your justification? That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. I hope you have a fantastic, what is it, it's Thursday. So I hope you have have a fantastic holiday weekend. That reminds me. No episode on Monday. It is a holiday. I also need a break sometimes. So there will be no episode on Monday, but I hope you have a fantastic weekend. And I will talk to you again on Thursday.