UNBIASED - October 23, 2025: Trump May Seek $230M from DOJ, East Wing Completely Demolished, National Guard Troops Can Be Deployed in Portland After All, CA Voters Vote on Prop 50, and More.

Episode Date: October 23, 2025

SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. 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: Appellate Court Says Trump CAN Deploy National Guard Troops to Portland (0:13) Pardoned January 6th Defendant Charged After Allegedly Threatening to Kill Hakeem Jeffries (11:56) Trump Says He Could Seek $230 Million from DOJ (16:36) East Wing Completely Demolished Making Way for New Ballroom (25:05) California Voters Begin Voting on Prop 50; Here's What You Need to Know About the Ballot Measure (34:37) Quick Hitters: Trump Admin Agrees to Forgive Some Student Debt, Massive Illegal Gambling Indictment, Pentagon Releases Names of New Press Corps, Trump Pardons Binance Co-Founder, Mortgage Rates Hit Lowest Level in 2025 (41:17) Rumor Has It: Did NYC Mayoral Candidate Zohran Mamdani Post a Photo with a 9/11 Co-Conspirator? (44:28) Critical Thinking Segment (46:54) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. 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, October 23rd. Let's talk about some news. Starting with the National Guard ruling out of Oregon, okay? And I know I just said last week that this National Guard news is getting a bit redundant and that going forward, I was just going to start directing you to past episodes. But of course, on Monday, we got a ruling from an appellate court that's unlike any of the other rulings we've seen in similar National Guard cases, so we have to talk about it. We have to talk about why it's different. On Monday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the Trump administration to deploy the National Guard in Portland

while litigation is pending. The court below had said that the National Guard troops could not be deployed pending litigation. So this appellate ruling overturns that previous lower court. ruling. As we have talked about in the past, there have been ongoing protests in Portland against the Trump administration's immigration policies. And while most of those protests have been peaceful, some have turned violent and protesters have threatened federal law enforcement officers, as well as the ICE facility in Portland. So in response to those protests, President Trump directed Defense Secretary Heggseth to coordinate the deployment of troops to Portland to protect federal buildings. In response to this directive and in anticipation of

deployment, the state of Oregon and the city of Portland went ahead and sued the administration, arguing that federalizing the Oregon National Guard exceeded the president's authority under Title 10 of the U.S. Code and that the directive for Hegseth to federalized troops violated the Posse Comitatis Act and the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. The lower court then went ahead and blocked the administration's ability to deploy the National Guard by granting the state of Oregon and city of Portland's request for what's called a temporary restraining order. Temporary restraining orders are in effect for 14 days. And the rationale there was that the state of Oregon and the city of Portland were likely to succeed on their claim once arguments are heard that Trump's deployment was unlawful and or unconstitutional. So the administration goes ahead and appeals this ruling granting the temporary restraining order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

And on Monday, in a two to one ruling, the appeals court granted the administration's request for an emergency stay on that lower court's temporary restraining order. In other words, the appellate court paused the lower court's order prohibiting the deployment. With that lower court order paused, the administration can now go ahead and proceed with deployment because there's nothing blocking them from doing so now. The appellate court's order reads in part, quote, after considering the record at this preliminary stage, after considering the facts, we conclude that it is likely that the president lawfully exercised his statutory authority under Title X, which authorizes the federalization of the National Guard, when the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States. And quote. And we've talked about Title X many, many, many times. Basically, it lays out three situations in which the president can lawfully federalize National Guard troops. One of those three situations is when the president is unable to execute the laws of the United States with regular

forces. So that is the rationale that the appellate court used in reaching its decision. Now, in coming to that decision, it takes into account four factors. So it looks at whether the administration is likely to succeed on the merits of the case, once arguments are heard, whether the administration would suffer irreparable harm without a stay, whether the stay would substantially injure other parties, and then where public interest lies in the matter. Because the court, the appellate court ultimately concluded that the administration is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal and that the other stay factors also weighed in the administration's favor, it granted the administration's request to pause the lower court's temporary restraining order. Now, the appellate court also emphasized that the president's authority under this statute, under title, 10 is in fact statutory. It is not constitutional. And therefore, courts have to apply a deferential

standard when it's reviewing these kinds of executive actions. In other words, because the president's authority to deploy the National Guard exists under a federal statute, courts generally give the president the benefit of the doubt when he makes a factual determination like this, whether it's a factual determination that he's unable to execute the laws of the United States with regular forces, whether it's a factual determination that there's danger of insurrection, whatever that factual determination is that authorizes him to federalize troops under Title X, the president gets deferential treatment. So the Ninth Circuit identified three main errors in the lower court's reasoning. So first, the Ninth Circuit noted that while the district court had acknowledged the deferential

standard that is owed to the president, it failed to apply that deferential standard correctly. The appellate panel wrote that the lower court, quote, substituted its own assessment of the facts for the presidents, end quote, and that the lower court improperly limited its review of the facts to a narrow time frame instead of considering the most. months of unrest leading up to the deployment of troops. The appellate court further noted that Title X does not impose any time restriction and only requires the president to determine that regular forces are insufficient to execute federal laws. The appellate court also criticized the lower court for relying too heavily on the president's social media statements. And then third, the appellate

court criticized the lower court for concluding that the temporary surge of federal officers in Portland signaled that regular forces were now adequate. So the appellate court's order reads, by interpreting the modest improvements created by the surge as demonstrating that the president did not have a colorable basis for invoking Title 10 and discounting that the surge of federal officers was inherently irregular, the district court accorded no deference to the president's determination that he could not execute federal laws with federal forces, end quote. Now from here, there are a couple of things that can happen. So first, Portland and Oregon can appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court and try to get the appellate court ruling overturned and,

you know, have the lower court order put back in place. Another thing, regardless of whether Oregon and Portland appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court, the lower court still needs to render a decision on the merits of the case. Remember that all the courts have done here, you know, they've only issued temporary rulings. First, the lower court issued a temporary restraining order, barring the administration from deploying troops, then the appellate court overturned that temporary restraining order. So the lower court still needs to hear actual arguments and render a final decision on the merits and come to a final determination. And from there, once a final determination is made, the case can then be appealed again to the Ninth Circuit and then

potentially to the Supreme Court. So that's what's going on with the deployment in Oregon. Now I'm going to make things just a little more complicated. Okay. So this is where we have to kind of tune out everything going on around us and just kind of try to focus on what I'm saying here because it does get a little bit dicey and it's important to kind of note the difference. Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals, the same court that we've been talking about for the last nine minutes or so, heard arguments in the National Guard case out of L.A. And you might be thinking, well, if the Ninth Circuit just overturned a restraining order in Portland, why wouldn't they automatically issue a similar ruling in L.A.? And the answer is that even though both cases deal with the

president's authority to deploy the National Guard, they're technically separate cases, right? They have different facts. There's different plaintiffs involved. They're different cases. Therefore, each case gets a separate look. Plus, and this is something many people don't know, appellate cases like this are usually heard by different three judge panels that are randomly assigned. So the judges in the LA case are not the same judges who decided the Portland case. And the idea there is to keep things fair and balanced so no one can predict which judges will hear a particular case in a particular circuit. There are a few exceptions to that rule, but generally the panels are constantly rotating. So this means that the LA panel will have to look at the record. They'll have to look at the facts

and the arguments in front of them and not just copy the Portland panel's decision. The LA panel might look at the Portland ruling as persuasive, but it's not automatically binding on them unless the full Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court. court has weighed in on the issue. And you might hear me say that and wonder, what do you mean the full Ninth Circuit? Well, normally cases in the Ninth Circuit are decided by a three-judge panel chosen at random. But sometimes if the issue is especially important, or if a three-judge panel's decision conflicts with another three-judge panel's decision within the Ninth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit can decide to rehear the case on Bonk.

And in most cases, en banc means all active judges sit together and rehear the case. But because the Ninth Circuit is so big, there's nearly 30 active judges on the Ninth Circuit, it uses a limited onbunk panel, which consists of 11 judges. So when I said the only way a ruling becomes binding on other or on all Ninth Circuit three judge panels is if, the full Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court has weighed in. I meant that the only way a ruling becomes binding on all three judge panels within the Ninth Circuit is if either the entire on bunk panel has weighed in on the issue or if the Supreme Court weighs in on the issue because the Supreme Court is obviously the highest court in the land. I warned you that I was going to make

that story more complicated. But just to end on a much simpler note, you are likely going to hear within the coming days about a Ninth Circuit ruling that determines whether the National Guard deployment in L.A. was lawful or unlawful. When those headlines start rolling in, just keep in mind that, yes, the Ninth Circuit is the very same circuit that issued the ruling in Portland, but these are two totally different cases with a different set of facts and a different panel of judges, and therefore, these rulings could look different. They could look the same, but they could look different. Next story, a pardoned January 6 defendant was arrested this week for allegedly threatening to kill House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. On Sunday, the New York State Police Bureau of Criminal Investigation and the Federal Bureau of Investigation Joint Terrorism Task Force announced the arrest of 34-year-old Christopher Moynihan on a charge of making a terroristic threat.

So let's talk a little bit about Moynihan's January 6th charges, his pardon, and then we'll talk about his new charge. And just as a heads up here, there are some expletives in this story. So if you're around your kids and you care, just skip past the next minute or so. According to a DOJ press release on January 6th, 2021, Moynihan broke through the security perimeter on the east side of the Capitol building and entered the Senate chamber. Prosecutor said Moynihan was among the first rioters to enter the Capitol grounds and watched others fight with police at the rotunda door. He yelled, quote, and we're fucking in. Fuck yeah. Every single one of you is a patriot. Remember that. Restore this republic, down with communism, down with Biden. We will restore our republic. And quote, the press release further notes, quote, while in the Senate chamber, Moynihan paged through a notebook on top of a senator's desk, taking out papers and taking pictures with his cell phone. While looking through the papers, he said, there's got to be something in here we can fucking use against the.

these shipbags. End quote. Moinehan was later escorted out of the Capitol after law enforcement officers cleared the Senate chamber. And on August 23rd, 2022, he was found guilty of the felony charge of obstructing an official proceeding. And he pleaded guilty to five related misdemeanor charges. In February 2023, he was sentenced to 21 months in prison, along with 36 months of supervised release and $2,000 in restitution. However, in 2012, in 24, the Supreme Court ruled in a case called Fisher that narrowed the scope of the felony charge that Moynihan and many other January 6 defendants were charged with. So following that Supreme Court ruling, a judge actually ordered Moynihan to be released from prison after he

had already served a 12-month sentence. That meant that Moynihan was already out of prison when Trump ended up issuing that mass pardon for the defendants convicted in. connection to January 6th. Nonetheless, Trump's pardon obviously still wiped Moynihan's record clean. Prior to Moynihan's January 6 conviction, by the way, he faced two petty larceny cases and four drug possession cases. So those are still very much on his record. And that just goes to show January 6 was certainly not Moynihan's first run in with the law. According to this new criminal complaint filed in state court, though, Moynihan has been charged with making a terroristic threat. The complaint explains that a person is guilty of making a

terroristic threat when, with intent to influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination, or kidnapping, he or she threatens to commit or cause to be committed a specified offense and thereby causes a reasonable expectation of fear of the imminent commission of such offense. I know that that sounds like a lot. That's because that's how laws are written. They're very confusing. But that is what it means to make a terroristic threat.

Charging documents state that the FBI received an anonymous tip from a person, quote, concerned over recent suspected narcotic abuse and an increase in the respondent's homicidal ideations. end quote. The complaint notes that around October 17th, Moynihan allegedly sent text messages stating, quote, Hakeem Jeffries makes a speech in a few days in New York City and I cannot allow this terrorist to live. Also, quote, even if I am hated, he must be eliminated. And, quote, I will kill him for the future. And quote. So Moynihan was arrested on Tuesday. He has reportedly pled not guilty and has been ordered by a New York judge to remain in custody. He is scheduled

or was scheduled to appear in court today for a hearing that will ultimately determine whether he can be released pending trial. Okay, let's take our first break here. When we come back, we'll talk about whether Trump is seeking $230 million from the DOJ. We'll talk about the East Wing demolition and more. With Amex Platinum, access to exclusive Amex pre-sale tickets can score you a spot trackside. So being a fan for life turns into the trip of a lifetime. That's the powerful backing of Amex.

pre-sale tickets for future events subject to availability and varied by race. Terms and conditions apply. Learn more at mx.ca.com. Welcome back. On Tuesday, while taking questions in the Oval Office, President Trump said he could be seeking $230 million from his own Justice Department as compensation for past investigations into him. These remarks came when CNN reporter Caitlin Collins asked Trump, quote, The New York Times is reporting that your legal team is seeking $230 million from your own Justice Department now,

in response to the investigations into you. Is that something you want your legal team to do? End quote. In response, Trump said, quote, I don't know what the numbers are. I don't even talk to them about it. All I know is that they would owe me a lot of money, but I'm not looking for money. I'd like to give it to charity or I would give it to charity or something. I'd give it to charity anyway. But look what they did. They rigged the election. And as you know, we had in one case, 60 minutes, had to pay us a lot of money. George Stephanopoulos had to pay us a lot of money. George Stephanopoulos had to pay us a lot of and they already paid me, you know. They paid me a lot of money because what they did was wrong. And, you know, when somebody does something, that's wrong. Now, with the country, it's interesting because

I'm the one that makes the decisions, right? And, you know, the decisions would have to go across my desk. And it's awfully strange to make a decision where I'm paying myself. In other words, did you ever have one of those cases where you have to decide how much you're paying yourself and damages? But I was damaged very greatly and any money that I would get, I would give to charity. end quote. So let's add a little bit of color here. Trump made these administrative claims for compensation from the DOJ in 2023 and 2024 before he was reelected. Those claims, which sought roughly $230 million, allege that the federal investigations into him, like the FBI raid of Mara Lago and the FBI's probe into a connection between Russia and his 2016 presidential campaign, were politically motivated.

When it comes to administrative claims like this, they're filed under what's called the Federal Tort Claims Act. Now, this is a law that allows private individuals to sue the government under certain circumstances for wrongful acts by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. The first step in this process is filing a claim with the relevant federal agency, detailing the claim, detailing the amount, and detailing the basis for liability. If the agency denies the claim or fails to act on the claim within six months of filing, the person can bring a lawsuit against the agency in federal court. So because the DOJ has not yet acted on Trump's claim, he could sue. And he's had the ability to sue for a while now. He just hasn't done so.

Now, that doesn't mean he won't sue. It's just to say at this point, he hasn't. On Wednesday, though, the New York Times reported that Trump's claims, against the DOJ might still be on the table. It's not clear why these claims are just now resurfacing. It's not clear why the New York Times is reporting on it now. But that report is what led Caitlin Collins to ask the question. Based on Trump's response, the claims aren't off the table, right? He didn't say he was going to let the claims go. He didn't say that he wasn't going to sue. What he said is that he's the one who makes the decisions that he was damaged very badly and that he would give any money he got to

charity. So let's take a look at this from a few different potential angles. For one, Trump could proceed with the lawsuit now that the six month deadline has passed. That would leave the question of whether he was harmed to the courts. Now, if the DOJ, considering it's his DOJ, is willing to settle with him, there's no point in filing a lawsuit, right? The only reason he would file a lawsuit is if the DOJ was not willing to settle and wanted to fight back against Trump's claims. And you might be thinking, well, why wouldn't Trump just direct his own DOJ to settle the claim so that he can get paid rather than filing a lawsuit? And you're not wrong for thinking that. It's a fair question. It's certainly a possibility. We've seen the DOJ back Trump on a number of fronts.

So it's possible they would be open to helping him here too. But there are hurdles. Okay. So first of all, it wouldn't be Trump himself personally approving the settlement. It would be either Todd Blanche, the current deputy attorney general, or Stanley Woodward, the associate attorney general. Moreover, even though it's, you know, quote unquote Trump's DOJ, DOJ lawyers still have professional ethics rules to follow. There are still conflict of interest rules that would apply when the claimant is also the sitting president and settlements still have to follow agency rules. In order for the DOJ to settle, it would need a lawful basis for liability, meaning the DOJ would have to agree that federal investigators acted wrongfully. And,

And here's another crucial point. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which is the law that Trump, you know, is using here, most decisions made by federal law enforcement are actually shielded from liability. Things like opening an investigation, choosing to prosecute someone, searching a property. These aren't treated like mistakes that the government can be sued over. They're treated as core executive functions, things that federal officials have to be able to do without worrying that, every subject of an investigation could turn around and sue them later. Legally, this is called the discretionary function exception. And it basically says if a federal action involves judgment policy or law, enforcement discretion, the government is protected, even if that judgment turns out to be wrong or ultimately based on bad information. So the bar for liability here is very high. That doesn't mean the DOJ won't assume liability and settle.

it just means that Trump's claim is legally pretty thin unless he has significant proof that the DOJ acted maliciously or illegally in its investigations into him. But I want to be clear, despite all of these hurdles that we just talked about, it is still quite possible that the DOJ settles. It is ultimately in the DOJ's hands what it wants to do here. So if the DOJ settles, this is what you need to know. Number one, taxpayers won't have much of a say, okay? Taxpayers likely would not be able to successfully sue to block a settlement. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that a generalized grievance about how the government spends money is not enough for taxpayer standing. Then you have Congress. Can Congress do anything? Well, Congress can hold hearings. It can ask

questions. It can subpoena documents. It can tie future funding to stricter rules. It can pass laws to avoid similar future settlements. But it can't really do much as far as, you know, withdrawing a settlement once it's agreed to or stopping the DOJ from entering into a settlement unless it were to pass a law beforehand or something that prevents a settlement like this. And then finally, there are watchdogs inside the government, right? These are, these are inspector generals and GAO auditors who can dig into whether ethics rules were followed or conflicts of interest were ignored. However, even if ethics rules were broken or conflicts of interests were ignored, they can't claw back the settlement. The only real, you know, ability to

stop a settlement like this is if the settlement breaks law, if it violates the Constitution, if it goes against appropriations rules, then someone withstanding might be able to challenge it. But who would have standing to challenge it? Possibly no one. Taxpayers don't have standing. The DOJ isn't going to sue themselves. Trump isn't going to sue, you know, to stop the settlement. and then courts generally don't get involved in fights between Congress and the executive when Congress just simply doesn't like the executive's decisions. So the short answer is that if the DOJ chooses to settle, that's likely the end of the story. And yes, the settlement would be paid with taxpayer money.

If you're wondering why everything is if this and if that, it's because the situation is very much unprecedented, right? We don't have the answers here. We've never had a president file an FTCA claim. against a federal agency and claim hundreds of millions of dollars and then also go on to win re-election and assume office again while his claims are still pending. So as much as I wish I could say here and give you concrete answers as to what happens next, we just don't have those. Okay, moving on to the next story. As of today, according to the Associated Press, the entire East Wing

has been demolished. So there are pictures that you can see online. At this point, it's basically just debris removal, but the east wing has been taken down. This news follows updated remarks from the president yesterday in which he said that most of the east wing would be torn down to pave the way for the new ballroom. Those remarks were new remarks because in July the president had said the existing structure wouldn't be touched. His exact words were that the project, quote, won't interfere with the current building, end quote. And that quote, it'll be near it, but not touching it and pays total respect to the existing building, which I'm the biggest fan of. End quote. During a press briefing around this same time, a few months back, White House press

secretary Caroline Levitt, said, quote, nothing will be torn down. End quote. But as of today, as I said, the entire East Wing, including the walkway to the White House residence, has been demolished. Now, I know a lot of you had questions as to whether any other president in history has ever done anything like this and whether what Trump is doing is legal. So let's answer those. questions. As far as previous renovations go, this is actually one of many White House renovations, right? The largest of the previous renovations was in 1902 when Teddy Roosevelt remodeled and modernized the White House. As part of that renovation, he removed certain elements of the White House like greenhouses and old gas lamps that were installed on columns. He also built on a dedicated office

wing, which later became the West Wing. He also built on the attached walkway that connected the residents to the office building addition. He expanded the private areas of the White House residence to accommodate for his six children. So we certainly put a lot of work into the White House. A few years later in 1909, President Taft remodeled and expanded the West Wing to create the Oval Office. In 1927, the White House got a new attic. It got a new roof. It also got a third floor, which included offices for servants and secretaries, as well as a solarium with floor-to-ceiling windows and panoramic views of DC. Two years later, in 1929, a fire ended up tearing through the West Wing on Christmas Eve, actually, due to faulty electrical wiring

in the attic, and it did significant damage to the White House press room, and after this, the attic and the roof of the West Wing had to be replaced once again. In 1933, as a FDR added 25,000 square feet of office space to the West Wing. And in 1942, FDR built the East Wing, which was originally built to cover up an underground bunker that was meant to protect the president and his staff from potential attacks during World War II. Then in 1948, President Truman carried out the second largest renovation. The interior of the White House was completely gutted with only the exterior walls left standing. Apparently, Truman's engineers questioned how the structure was even still standing, and they determined that it needed to be completely redone.

So during this renaud, the Truman's actually moved across the street to the Blair House. They lived there from 1948 until 1952 while the White House was being rebuilt. And by the time that renovation was completed, the White House had a new 22-foot-deep foundation, interior walls made from steel frames. it had new solid concrete floors. It grew from about 48 rooms to 54 rooms, and it included two new sub-basements. Since that time, since 1952, many presidents have made their own small changes and additions. I'll give you a few examples. In 1962, Jacqueline Kennedy expanded and transformed the Rose Garden.

In 1973, Nixon added a one-lane bowling alley and converted the indoor pool room to the press briefing room. In 1993, Clinton converted the butler's pantry to a family kitchen. And in 2008, Obama renovated the tennis court to be used for both tennis and basketball. Michelle also added the White House kitchen garden. So there's been a decent amount of renovation since the White House was built, of course. Trump's replacement of the East Wing with a new ballroom is most comparable to Truman's 1948 renovation or Roosevelt's 1902 renovation. Roosevelt cited the need for modernization, as is Trump. Truman gutted the White House. Trump is taking down the East Wing. And the

renovations are all similar in that all three presidents, Truman Roosevelt and Trump, are and have stayed stylistically consistent with the classical elements of the White House, right? The style is very much the same. Trump's renovation is different. though, in that it's being funded completely by himself and by private donors. Earlier renovations to the White House were all government funded. The scale of the ballroom is also very large. So past renovations, while also pretty significant, were somewhat more functional. And then finally, earlier structural renovations were necessitated by structural issues or changes in government function rather than being primarily driven by a desire for event hosting, which is the purpose

of this new ballroom. So Trump's renovation is similar to past renovations. It's also different. Okay. I mean, as with anything, you're going to be able to find similarities. You're going to be able to point out differences. Let's talk, though, about the legalities of all of this. We know that the White House announced that it would seek approval from the NCPC after the demolition was already underway. However, the NCPC says, that it has limited jurisdiction over the White House and its non-vertical construction plans, which is why it hasn't really been involved up until this point, meaning the NCPC doesn't, according to the chair, doesn't have jurisdiction over demolition and taking buildings down,

but it does have jurisdiction over buildings that are going up. Outside of, and presumably that means that even if the administration didn't need to consult the NCPC or get approval for demolition, it would need to get approval for the building of the new ballroom. Outside of the NCPC, the National Historical Preservation Act of 1966 requires all federal agencies to consider the effects of their construction projects on the existing historical structures. However, according to the NCPC, the White House is exempt from these requirements because it's a federal workplace, a historic landmark, and the private residence of the president.

Because it serves three different purposes, different laws are going to apply in different ways. And there's no law that explicitly says who has final authority when major structural changes to the White House are proposed. So historic preservation experts argue that, you know, the White House is a protected landmark, national landmark, and therefore major demolition or additions should require outside review under the National Historic Preservation Act and from the Commission of Fine Arts and the National

Capital Planning Commission, the NCPC. Defenders of the president's authority, though, argue that the White House is the president's house. That's where he lives. And it's also, you know, a central workplace. And therefore, the president has inherent constitutional authority over its functioning and security, which can override outside approvals. So it's not necessarily this cut and dry issue. We don't have a definitive answer one way or the other. And by the way, the only two renovations that we can really compare this to, the Truman renovation and the Roosevelt renovation, those were both undertaken before these modern preservation laws and outside commissions existed. So there is no precedent to tell us. Truman's renovation

did have congressional authorization, but it's unclear whether Trump also would, you know, get or need to get congressional authorization because the administration is saying, this is something that's going to be privately funded and not funded by the government. Now, that's not to say Congress loses all oversight if something is privately funded. It just means that the situation is a bit different than when Truman renovated and obtained congressional authorization. At the end of the day, the debate around, you know, approvals and legalities and all of that, it centers around the uniqueness of the White House.

It is unlike any other building in the United States in that, yes, it is a historic federal property, but it's also the president's home. It is the president's residence. It is the center of the executive branch. So preservation advocates say you need external review, but the executive says, no, actually, the president decides what to do with his house. And nobody has ever really tested where that line is, which is why everything here feels like a gray area because it is a gray area. That's just the reality of the situation. Let's take our second and final break here. When we come back, we'll talk about California's Prop 50. We'll do Quick Kidders, Rumor has it, and we'll finish with critical thinking. Welcome back. I wanted to quickly answer some questions about California's Prop 50, also known as the election rigging response act. A ton of you have written into me.

You have questions about it. I know probably just as many of you actually live in California. So let's just cover the basics real quick. I don't want to spend too much time on this, but I do want to answer some of the most frequently asked questions so that everyone understands what this is. California's Prop 50 is a ballot initiative that'll be on the California ballot this November, but people are already sending in their mail-in ballots. I think there's been just over 3 million mail-in ballots that have already been received.

So what Prop 50 would do is temporarily allow the legislature to enact a new congressional map for the state to potentially add up to five Democratic seats in the House of Representatives. It's meant to counteract actions that are being taken in red states like Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina, which have all red drawn their maps to add anywhere from one to five Republican seats in the House of Representatives. Democrats are are portraying these red state actions as rigging elections, and they're saying that they're rigging these elections to solidify support for Republicans in Congress in 2026, whereas red states say that what they're doing is legal and it's not a quibing. to rigging elections. And we've talked about partisan gerrymandering multiple times in the last few months. So I don't want to necessarily go down that rabbit hole today. We're just talking about California's initiative and in doing so I'm going to answer three of your top questions. So the first question is, why does California need a ballot measure? And other states like Texas can just do

what they want when they want. This depends on the state. So in most states, congressional maps are drawn by the state legislature. The state legislature draws the maps, it passes the maps via the typical legislative process, and that's that. And typically it's done every 10 years, but there's some states, so some states say that maps can only be drawn every 10 years. Other states don't have any rules surrounding it and the legislature can redraw maps when they want to. Now, naturally, when it's in the legislature's hands, you know, that means that whatever party it has the majority when it comes time to draw the map, they can draw the district lines in a way that benefits their party. And that's generally legal, by the way. It's called partisan gerrymandering.

Some states, though, use independent commissions to draw the map rather than the state legislature. The independent commission is meant to ensure little political interference, though it doesn't always work out that way. California is one of those states that has an independent commission. So California's legislature does not draw the map. It is the independent commission. It's been that way since 2010 when voters passed Prop 20 and took congressional redistricting power away from lawmakers and gave it to the Independent Commission. So because California voters gave the power of drawing congressional maps to this independent commission and enshrined that in the state constitution, the legislature cannot just simply take back that power when they want to. To do so, to be able to enact a map or draw a map and then enact it, it has to pass a constitutional amendment allowing it to reclaim that power.

And that is what the legislature is doing with Prop 50 right now. Meanwhile, in Texas, the legislature already has the power to draw maps. It never gave that power up. So that's why the Texas legislature can proceed with new maps without consulting voters, yet California has to put it on the ballot. The second question is, what exactly would voters be voting for if they voted yes? and what would it mean for voters to vote? No. Okay, so as a voter voting yes, you're basically saying, yes, I want the state legislature to have the ability to enact a new congressional map ahead of the 2030 census. A vote yes would say that you support suspending the current map, which was drawn by the independent commission, and that you approve of this new map that the state legislature has drawn that will be used for the upcoming 2020. 26, 2028, and 2030 elections. A vote yes means that there would be a new map in place for the next

five years that could add up to five Democratic seats in the House. Okay. A vote no says that you want the independent commission to keep doing its job and that you are okay waiting until after the 2030 census for a new map. A vote no basically says, I don't want the legislature drawing a new map. I don't don't want this new proposed map taking effect. I'm fine keeping the map that's in place now and waiting for the commission to draw a new map once the 2030 census is conducted. Keep in mind that the proposed map from the legislature is already drawn. You can find it online. I also have it linked in the sources section of this episode. The proposed map that would take effect if the ballot measure passes, it doesn't add any new districts, but instead it redraws existing

district lines in a way that could potentially take five seats from Republicans in the House of Representatives and give them to Democrats. So put simply, okay, a yes vote means the state would use new legislatively drawn congressional district maps starting in 2026. California's new maps would be used until the independent commission draws new maps following the 2030 census. A no vote means current congressional district maps drawn by the independent commission would continue to be used in California until the commission draws new maps following the 2030 census. The third and final question is, will Prop 50, if passed, impose a permanent change? No. If Prop 50 is passed, it gives the legislature the power to draw new maps up until the 2030 census. Once the

census is conducted, the power goes back to the independent commission. Now, if Prop 50 doesn't pass, the map California currently has will remain in effect until the independent commission draws a new map after 2030. So I hope that that cleared up any confusion. And please note that I do have additional resources for you in the sources section of this episode if you want to do a bit more research. The sources can always be found by going to the show notes of each episode and clicking the link that says sources for this episode can be found here. Now for some quick hitters, the Trump administration has agreed to a court-supervised plan that will speed up debt cancellation under income-driven repayment programs and protect

borrowers from unexpected tax bills next year. According to the filing, the administration must cancel student debt for all eligible borrowers enrolled in income-driven repayment, income-contingent repayment, pay as you earn, public service loan forgiveness programs. Borrowers who make payments after becoming eligible for cancellation will be reimbursed, and the administration must also file six monthly progress reports with the court to show the pace of application processing and loan discharges. This forgiveness will impact an estimated 2.5 million borrowers who are enrolled in certain

federal repayment plans that offer lower monthly payments based on a borrower's earnings. federal prosecutors announced that more than 30 people were indicted in two separate illegal gambling related cases. The indictment alleges that a group organized illegal poker games that were rigged against wealthy victims. So they used well-known professional athletes like Portland Trailblazers coach Chauncey Billups and Miami Heat Guard Terry Rosier to lure their victims. And the so-called cheating teams allegedly used shuffling machines that were supposed to be randomized to ensure fairness, but were allegedly altered to read the cards in the deck. The machines would then allegedly predict which player at the table had the best

hand and send that information to an off-site operator. The former athletes allegedly received a portion of the proceeds in exchange for their participation in the scheme. The DOD has released a list of 60 new journalists that have signed off on the Pentagon's new press policy and will be now joining the Pentagon Press Corps. The new press corps is entirely pro-Trump influence. influencers, content creators, and outlets, plus some foreign media. Some of these include Tim Poole, Lindell TV, TP USA Frontlines, the post-millennial, Washington reporter, and Red State. President Trump has pardoned Binance co-founder Chang Peng Zhao, who pled guilty to charges that he failed to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program in 2023. The announcement was made by

press secretary Caroline Leavitt, who said in a statement that Zau was prosecuted by the Biden administration in their war on cryptocurrency and that the Biden administration's sentencing of Zau was too harsh. Notably, Trump's family's crypto firm, World Liberty Financial, is hosted on finance. Zal was not in prison at the time of the pardon, as he was only sentenced to four months back in 2024. And finally, according to Freddie MacData released today, the average 30-year-fixed mortgage rate dropped from 6.19% for the week ending October 23rd, down from 6.27% last week, and this is the lowest rate of the year. For more quick hitters, make sure you're subscribed to my free newsletter. It goes out every Tuesday and Friday morning. Just find the

sign-up link in the show notes, enter your email address, and you are in. And now it's time for rumor has it my weekly segment where I addressed rumors submitted by all of you and either confirm them, dispel them, and or add context. And today we have it just one. rumor has it that New York City mayoral candidate Zoran Mamdani posted a photo with a 9-11 co-conspirator. This rumor is false. Let's add some context. Mamdani recently posted a picture to his ex account that shows him posing with a city council member and another man named Imam Siraj Wahj. Imam Saraj Wahj was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the World Trade Center terrorist attack of 1993, which killed six.

people and injured more than a thousand others. This is a separate attack from 9-11. Okay. The 1993 attack involved a rental van that was packed with roughly 1,200 pounds of explosives and it detonated in the garage of the North Tower. The attack was claimed by a group with ties to Palestinian militants who cited motivations related to U.S. foreign policy. Eventually, six men were arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison, a seventh, suspect was never caught and he is still on the FBI's most wanted list. But after the trial of the initial four suspects, prosecutors released a list of individuals who they believed to be involved with the bombing but didn't have sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction. Imam Saraj

Wahaj was on that list. Wajaj has also been a source of controversy due to his support of of Islamic laws over liberal democracy. So Wahaj has been quoted saying that Islam is better than democracy and that, quote, if Allah says 100 strikes, a hundred strikes it is. If Allah says cut off their hand, you cut off their hand. If Allah says stone them to death through the prophet Muhammad, then you stone them to death because it is the obedience of Allah and his messenger, nothing personal. End quote.

Wahj has also expressed his support for capital punishment and stoning for adultery. So to circle back, Mamdani did not post a photo with a 9-11 co-conspirator. The man in the photo was included on a list of people believed to be involved with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, though he was never indicted due to a lack of evidence. All right, let's finish with some critical thinking. We're going to revisit the demolition. These are just a few general questions to get you thinking about the situation. First, in your opinion, should the president have unilateral? authority to alter a national landmark like the White House, or should outside review always be

required? Why or why not? And does your answer change if the project is privately funded? And then finally, given that precedent is unclear, okay, should government institutions err on the side of preservation or should they err on the side of presidential authority? And regardless of of what your answer is, I want you to come up with a few pros and cons of each. That is what I have for you today. I hope you have a fantastic weekend. I will talk to you on Monday.