UNBIASED - October 30, 2025: Texas Sues Makers of Tylenol, Trump Media to Launch Prediction Markets, House Releases Report on Biden's Autopen Use, and Is ICE Ramping Up Social Media Surveillance?

Episode Date: October 30, 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: Texas Sues Makers of Tylenol Over Deceptive Marketing and Fraudulent Restructuring (0:12) Truth Media to Launch New Prediction Markets on Truth Predict (14:50) House Oversight Committee Releases Report on Biden's Autopen Use and Cognitive Decline (23:48) Trump Fires All Six Commissioners on Commission of Fine Arts (30:52) Quick Hitters: 9th Circuit to Reconsider National Guard Deployment, Senate Shutdown Negotiations Taking Place, Trump Directs Nuclear Weapons Testing, Trump Says Constitution Is "Pretty Clear" About Third Term, Trade Deal Announced with South Korea, Fed Lowers Interest Rates (34:53) Rumor Has It: Is ICE Ramping Up Social Media Surveillance? (38:58) Critical Thinking Segment (43:30) 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 30th. Let's talk about some news. On Tuesday, Texas's Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against the makers of Tylenol, alleging that companies deceptively marketed the medication as safe despite potential links to autism and other neurological disorders. The named defendants in this lawsuit include Johnson & Johnson, which was the previous parent company of Tylenol, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., which was the previous subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson that sold and marketed Tylenol, and then Kenview, which is a new publicly traded company that now owns and markets Tylenol. And we'll get into the business side of things more in a few minutes because that's a big part of Texas. lawsuits, but I want to focus on the deceptive marketing claims first. So the lawsuit claims that the defendants named in this lawsuit have committed various actions that have violated both

the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act, the DTPA, and the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, the UFTA. So the DTPA essentially prohibits. its companies from false misleading or deceptive business practices and allows private citizens or the Texas Attorney General to sue companies that misrepresent products or services or fail to disclose important information about those products or services or otherwise engage in deceptive marketing. The UTFA is a little bit more complicated. So we'll talk about that part of the lawsuit when we get there. We'll talk about that when we kind of talk about the business structure of all of this. So for now, like I said, let's stick to the deceptive trade practices

portion of this lawsuit. Texas alleges that these companies knew that acetaminophen, which is the active ingredient in Tylenol, was dangerous to pregnant women and children. Texas claims that these companies misled consumers by representing that Tylenol does not pose a risk to pregnant women or children who consume the drug, that it's safe for pregnant women and children to take Tylenol, that Tylenol is the safest drug for pregnant women who have a fever, and that alternatives to Tylenol are more dangerous to pregnant women than Tylenol itself. The complaint also claims that these companies fail to disclose certain information, including the risks associated with pregnant women and children taking Tylenol, which if known to pregnant women and children

could have caused them to not take the drug. Texas claims that these practices were deceptive and therefore a violation of state law. The complaint argues that despite quote unquote overwhelming evidence, the defendants have taken no steps to warn pregnant women of the dangers associated with taking acetaminopin while pregnant. And instead, Texas claims that these companies hid the danger from pregnant women and children and deceptively marketed Tylenol as the only safe painkiller for pregnant women. The complaint also alleges that the defendants misled consumers and professionals by representing acetaminopin as FDA pregnancy category B on Tylenol's website, specifically targeting health professionals. It's Tylenolprofessional.com.

And Category B is the category of drugs that have shown no risk to the fetus in animal studies. Meanwhile, Texas argues that the FDA never assigned any category to over-the-counter acedaminopin. And the only type of acetaminopin that the FDA did assign a pregnancy category to was an injectable form of acetaminopin. and that was actually placed in category C, which is a more, quote-unquote, it's a riskier category. Consequently, Texas argues because of the defendant's misrepresentations, health care professionals and consumers have falsely believed that Tylenol is a safe pain reliever for pregnant women and the only safe pain reliever for pregnant women at that. finally as it relates to the deceptive trade practices portion of the lawsuit the lawsuit notes that the defendants have voluntarily added other warnings for other risks that had even less research than Tylenol and that all of the aforementioned actions that we've just gone over deprived consumers

of the right to make an informed choice okay so that's that's the first portion of this lawsuit as for the second law at issue in this case the UTFA this is a law that basically says you can't move your money or assets around just to keep people from being able to come after you for what you owe them okay so you can think about it like this if you are about to get sued and you suddenly transfer all of your money to your cousin or you move your house into someone else's name so that on paper you you appear to be broke, right? That would be a fraudulent transfer. You cannot do that under the law. So in the Tylenol case, Texas is saying that Johnson and Johnson tried to do exactly that. So until 2003, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. was the company that owned and marketed the Tylenol brand under Johnson and Johnson.

J.JCI, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. was the subsidiary that made representations about Tylenol's safety for pregnant women and children. And during this time that JJCI was responsible for the marketing of Tylenol, Texas says that JJCI had knowledge of studies suggesting links between acetaminopin used during pregnancy and neurodevelopmental risks. But that JJCI continue to market Tylenol as safe anyway. So then in 2023, J&J, the parent company of JJCI, spun off its consumer health division and transferred its Tylenol brand along with Tylenol's assets and liabilities to a new company called Kenview. So Texas is arguing that when J and J created Kenview and moved Tylenol and Tylenol's potential legal liabilities

over to Kenview, it was really trying to shield itself from future lawsuits tied to Tylenol's safety. In other words, Texas is claiming that transferring Tylenol's potential legal liabilities to Kenview protected both J&J and J.J.C.I from being held accountable for their statements later on. Of course, that's just what Texas alleges, right? Johnson and Johnson says that this spinoff was a legitimate corporate move that Ken View is now a fully independent company and that the transfer had nothing to do with avoiding liability. But that is what the second part of this case is all about, whether that transfer and that sort of shift in business structure was a routine business move or instead it was a strategic way to avoid accountability. So there's two main portions to this lawsuit. We have the deceptive marketing and deceptive trade practices that we talked about first, and then this business structuring or restructuring that we talked about second. Kenview has responded to this lawsuit. So their statement is relatively long, but it essentially says that as a company, they've always cared most about the health and safety of the

people who use its products. And it reiterated its position that acetaminopin is the safest pain reliever option for pregnant women as needed throughout their pregnancy and that without it, women face dangerous choices. It also stated that medical providers and health authorities agree that the current evidence does not support claims that acetaminopin causes autism and that the FDA itself has concluded that the data available to us does not support a causal association between acetaminopin and autism. Kenview believes that Texas his lawsuit contains a deliberate distortion of facts meant to, you know, allow it to prevail in its product liability claims. Kenview says it will defend itself against the claims and follow

the legal process and that they reaffirmed that it's critical that expecting women listen to health professionals and not lawyers when taking medical advice for their unique medical conditions. So it's pretty much a summary of Kenvue's statement on the matter. Now, obviously, sides are going to remain firm in their positions and stand their ground, right? If you want to know more about what we actually know about the autism acetaminopin link, I highly, highly recommend listening to my September 23rd episode. I did a whole deep dive there. It's a 20 minute discussion. Again, it's my September 23rd episode. Just to kind of give you like a one sentence synopsis, the studies have shown that there is a possible link between a Cetaminopin use during pregnancy

and autism development in children. However, no research currently proves causation. So association and causation are two different things. But again, in that September 23rd episode, I go into a ton of detail. What I want to quickly cover here is whether Kenvue or J&J had a legal obligation to disclose a potential link between autism and children and taking acetaminifin during pregnancy. The short answer is that there is no clear legal obligation for them to do so, and that is because there is no scientific or regulatory body that has established that the link is causal or that the risk meets the legal standard for requiring a warning. The FDA has publicly stated that evidence is inconclusive and that the evidence does not support

changing acetaminopin labeling at this time. Now, that doesn't mean that Texas's claim is baseless, okay? But it does mean that the bar for proving deceptive trade practices is going to be very high for Texas. Under federal law, and keep in mind, Texas's lawsuit was brought under state law, not federal law, but federal law is relevant here. Under federal law, particularly the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as well as FDA labeling regulations, companies have to include warnings about known or reasonably knowable risks. And reasonably knowable means that there are is credible scientific evidence strong enough to suggest that the product can actually cause

harm. Association alone is not enough. And so far, like I said, what we know about the autism, acetaminopin potential link is that there's an association, but there's not, causation has not been, has not been proven. And also, the FDA actually discourages companies from adding warnings that could confuse consumers or contradict the agency's position on a matter. So if Kenview were to include a warning or JJCI back when it marketed Tylenol were to include a warning about possible links to autism, it could actually risk violating federal preemption rules which prevent states from imposing requirements that conflict with FDA labeling decisions. Importantly, though, and this is why I'm, you know, this is why I said there's a

difference between state law and federal law. Federal law is certainly relevant here. But what's important to keep in mind, too, is that Texas's deceptive trade practices claim hinges on whether Ken Vue and J&J misled consumers, not on whether the autism link is proven, right? It's focused on whether consumers were misled. So Texas is arguing that. that even if the science is not settled, the companies knew that there were studies suggesting possible risks and failed to disclose those risks while continuing to market Tylenol as safe for pregnant women. And Texas bringing this claim under the State Deceptive Marketing or Deceptive Trade Practices Act is certainly a strategic move because under that state law,

you don't necessarily need to prove that the product was unsafe. You just need to prove that the company's marketing was misleading or that it omitted material information that could have influenced a consumer's decision. So Texas's strongest argument here is that consumers deserve to know that research exists suggesting potential risks, even if it's, you know, unproven. And that saying Tylenol is the safest option for pregnant women, might be misleading by omission. And of course, on the other side, Ken view strongest defense is that FDA regulations explicitly govern what can be said about drug safety, and the current

scientific consensus does not justify a warning. So therefore, any state-level lawsuit trying to force a warning is actually preempted by federal law. But that's the gist of the lawsuit. Now it will be up to the courts to decide whether Texas can prove its claims or whether federal labeling rules will actually protect the defendants from liability in this case. Let's take our first break here. When we come back, we'll talk about the new Trump media prediction market and the firing of the Fine Arts Commission or commissioners and much more. Welcome back. Trump Media says it is launching a new prediction market between truth social and crypto.com derivatives of North America.

So this new market will be called Truth Predict, and it will allow betters to place money bets on future events. So things like election results, policy decisions, market changes, sports, potentially even pop culture, et cetera. So we'll get it more into what the prediction markets look like in a minute. But in a statement, the chairman and CEO of Trump Media said, quote, we are thrilled to become the world's first publicly traded social media platform to offer our users' access to prediction markets. TruthPredict will allow our loyal users to engage in prediction markets with a trusted network while harnessing our social media platform to provide totally unique ways for users to discuss and compare their predictions. With more than $3 billion

in financial assets as of the end of the second quarter, and having posted our first quarter of positive operating cash flow after going public just last year, Trump media is well positioned to leverage our strong balance sheet and existing social media capabilities to create a new standard for access to prediction market platforms. For far too long, global elites have closely controlled these markets with TruthPredict were democratizing information and empowering everyday Americans to harness the wisdom of the crowd, turning free speech into actionable foresight, end quote. So let's add some context here. Prediction markets are basically trading platforms where people bet on the outcome of future events. You can think of them

almost like stock markets, but instead of buying shares in companies, you're buying shares in predictions. Each contract that you buy into is tied to a yes or no question. And when I say contract, I don't want you to think of like a legal contract or paperwork. Think of it like buying a small digital share in an outcome. They just call it a contract. So if, an event happens, that share is worth $1. If the event doesn't happen, it's worth $0. I'll give you an example. A contract might ask, will interest rates go down in the first quarter of 26? If you think yes, you buy the yes side. Okay. So let's say you buy it for 70 cents. If interest rates end up going down in the first quarter, you'll get a dollar back. If interest rates

don't go down in the first quarter, you lose your 70 cents. That price, the 70 cents, reflects what the market collectively thinks the odds are of interest rates going down in the first quarter of 2026. Now, an important distinction between prediction markets and sports betting is this. In sports betting, you are betting against a sports book. In prediction markets, people are betting against each other. So the price of each contract goes up or down based on what traders collectively believe will happen. So if most people think that an event is likely to happen, the contract's price goes up.

If they think it's unlikely to happen, the price will drop. Prediction markets purely focus on the odds of an event happening, whether that's elections, the economy, sports, pop culture, like, people will literally can place bets on these prediction markets about whether, you know, a celebrity is going to break up. Okay. So there's a ton of variety here when it comes to these prediction markets and what people are putting money on.

One of the first modern versions of this prediction market idea actually came from the University of Iowa back in 1988 during the 1988 presidential election. So the university launched this online market for people to trade. predictions about the election. But especially in the past year, so I would say since last year's election cycle, these platforms have exploded in popularity. They're putting a ton of money into the election specifically. And two of the biggest prediction markets right now are Kulshi and Polly Market. So what Trump Media is doing is it's teaming up with crypto.com to launch this new prediction market called truth predict. And what makes this unique is that it'll be built directly

into truth social, Trump media's social media app. So people won't have to have to go to a separate website like Colchie or Polymarket to make their predictions. They'll be able to do it from the app while also engaging with people in the app. Now, most other prediction markets like Colchium Polymarket are what's called designated contract markets. And this is really just a government term for platforms that are officially registered and regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission or the CFTC. The CFTC is a federal agency that oversees commodities, futures, derivatives trading in the United States. Being a designated market means that those platforms have to follow strict rules about who can trade.

how bets are structured and what type of events people can legally put their money on. Truth Predict, on the other hand, is not yet clear about how it'll fit into that regulatory framework, especially since it's being offered through a social media company rather than a standalone financial exchange. So platforms like Kalshi and Polly Market are government-approved and heavily regulated financial marketplaces. Truth Predict, though, will be this sort of new type of untested model that actually embeds event betting inside of a social media app. So it's a little bit different. Whether truth predict will receive CFTC oversight like these other platforms remains to be seen.

And because Trump Media is a publicly traded company, this would also be the first time that a publicly traded company has offered a built-in prediction market like this. So naturally, this announcement has raised concerns about. potential conflicts of interest that could arise from this new platform, truth predict. The reason being that the president has significant influence over policies, politics, you know, and financial markets. And his his public statements or policy decisions can directly affect the kinds of events that people might be betting on. Owning or having a financial interest in a company that allows users to bet on the outcome of those events could present

a conflict of interest, or at least the appearance of one. For example, if users on truth predict can place bets on whether the United States would lift oil sanctions on Venezuela, any statement or policy decision from President Trump on that issue could influence the market and then in turn effect payouts, right? Because a sitting president has the authority to shape or signal policy decisions, his connection to a company tied to event-based markets raises questions about how those actions could indirectly move markets that he's linked to. The president also, not to mention, has access to non-public information that could influence market outcomes as well. And this just gives rise to the same type of concerns that come up when

lawmakers trade stocks, right? We've seen a lot of concern around that lately. Also, because prediction markets fall under the oversight of the CFTC, a sitting president could at least in theory influence how such markets are regulated or enforced. So in short, the concern here is that truth predict could create situations where the president's actions or public statements might move markets that are tied to a company with which he or his family are financially connected. It is important to note that before taking office, Trump did transfer his shares in Trump media to a trust controlled by his son, Donald Trump Jr.,

So he does not currently own or hold Trump media shares directly or make day-to-day decisions about them. Still, though, because the trust that he set up exists for his benefit, he could potentially benefit from the company's success after leaving office. And of course, his family members who currently manage the trust could benefit financially in the meantime. So that is what we know about truth predict at this point. It's something we haven't really seen before. So there's still a lot of unanswered questions about how it will be regulated, but as with most things, time will tell us more. On Tuesday, the House Oversight Committee released a report detailing the findings of the investigation into President Biden's Autopen use and his cognitive health while in office.

The report alleges that some executive actions, including pardons of family members and others within his administration, were issued via Autopin without clear direct approval from the president himself. and that key aides may have concealed his physical or mental decline. Notably, the report recommends that all executive actions signed via Autopenn should be null and void and asks the DOJ to investigate whether legal consequences should follow. Keep in mind that this is a report that was done by House Committee Republicans and not the full committee. In fact, Democrats on the committee reject the Republicans' conclusions.

they say the evidence doesn't show that the president lacked involvement or that the auto pen was misused. So to give you some additional context here towards the end of Biden's presidency, he issued several presidential pardons to various individuals like Dr. Fauci, the January 6th investigative committee, his son, Hunter Biden. All of these pardons were signed via auto pen. And an auto pen, by the way, it's an electronic device that is used to attach the president's signature to documents without the president having to physically sign the documents himself. It's actually a pretty common practice. All the presidents since the auto pens creation have used it. The key to using the auto pen is that presidents still have to approve the signing of the

documents. They just don't have to physically sign the documents themselves. They can use the auto pen instead. But concerns have arisen regarding whether Biden's pardons were issued with his informed approval and whether Biden's judgment was sound at the time of issuance. In March of this year, President Trump publicly called all of Biden's auto pen issued pardons void. And a couple of months later in May, the House Oversight Committee announced subpoenas for various White House aides regarding what they call the cover up of President Joe Biden's mental decline and potentially unauthorized use of auto pen for sweeping pardons and other executive actions.

End quote. By issuing those subpoenas, the House Oversight Committee was able to question under oath various people within the Biden administration, including but not limited to Biden's White House staff secretary, Biden's doctor, the former assistant to the president and chief of staff to the first lady, the former White House chief of staff, the former counselor to the president, the former senior advisor to the president, and the former. former White House Press Secretary. In total, there were 14 depositions that took place as part of this investigation. And after all of those depositions took place, the committee compiled this

report, which details its investigations and findings. And that is what we're seeing now. So in this new report, the committee claims that it found quote unquote substantial evidence that Biden experienced significant mental and physical decline during his presidency, and that some then White House officials, quote, actively sought to conceal his deterioration from the public, end quote. Committee members say they found evidence suggesting that senior aides and advisors not only managed the president's schedule and public image, but also occasionally carried out executive functions on his behalf. The report alleges that Biden's physician, Dr. Kevin O'Connor, repeatedly declined to administer a formal cognitive test despite internal discussions about Biden's health. and that White House staff stage-managed Biden's public appearance to limit any visible signs of decline. The report also claims that there were gaps in the chain of custody for certain decision memo binders

and for autopen use on official documents, including alleged instances where presidential approvals were not properly documented. The committee specifically points to the use of the autopen on those late-term presidential pardons, talked about and calls on the DOJ to review whether such pardon should be considered valid. It goes as far as to recommend that all executive actions signed via Autopenn be rendered null and void. Now, again, as I said, this is a majority report by Republicans on the Oversight Committee. It is not a bipartisan finding. Democrats on the committee strongly dispute the conclusions. They call the investigation politically motivated.

And they pointed out that the report introduces no new verified evidence. So while the, you know, committee members that did conduct this investigation say it found substantial evidence, much of what's presented in the report relies on phrasing like, you know, indicates, suggests, raises questions, et cetera, not so much, there's not a focus on actual hard proof. So the bottom line is that the oversight committee's report alleges that Biden's aides exercised presidential power without Biden's direct consent. and covered up his declining health. But at this stage, you know, as we've talked about, the evidence is contested, and the DOJ has not made any determination about whether the Autopenn use or the Associated pardons were unlawful. But here's where the constitutional reality comes in.

Presidential pardons are among the broadest and least restricted powers granted by the Constitution. We've talked about this before. Article 2 gives the president nearly unchecked authority to grant pardons for federal offenses. courts have consistently ruled that once a pardon is issued, even if it's controversial, even if it's politically motivated, even if it's signed by Autopen, it's effectively final. There is no formal process to revoke or overturn a validly issued pardon. And the DOJ itself cannot just simply undo one. Even if the DOJ were to determine that the Autopin's use was improper or that staff involvement

raised procedural questions. The pardons would likely still stand. The only way to challenge them would be through the courts through extensive constitutional litigation. And even then, a challenge likely wouldn't succeed because the courts are so willing to defer to the executive when it comes to the pardoning power of the president. So yes, the House Oversight Committee conducted this investigation and Republicans on this committee are calling for the pardons to be declared null and void, but it's nowhere near that simple. You can't just declare a part in null and void. Let's take our second and final break here. And when we come back, we'll talk about Trump firing all six members of the Commission of Fine Arts. We'll do quick hitters. And then we'll

finish with rumor has it and critical thinking. Welcome back. Earlier this week, President Trump fired all six sitting members of the board of the Commission of Fine Arts. And the reason people are talking about it is because those individuals were expected to review Trump's new ballroom construction. So we'll talk about the commission itself first, and then we'll dive into whether Trump was within his authority to fire the board members, as well as the role that the commission was expected to play in the ballroom construction. The commission of fine arts or CFA was established in 1910, and it functions as an independent federal agency that advises not only the president, but also Congress and other federal and D.C. agencies on architecture, design, aesthetics,

all in an effort to preserve the dignity of the nation's capital. The board typically consists of seven members who are appointed by the president, and each member serves a four-year term without pay. Notably, the chair position was vacant at the time of the firings. Now, four of the fire four of the six fired commissioners had terms expiring this year after being appointed by Biden in 2021. And two of them had terms that weren't set to expire until 2028 because they had just been appointed by Biden last year. Speaking of Biden, though, the last 11 board members were appointed by Biden. So when he took office in 2021, he actually went ahead and fired four of Trump's appointees, all white men, because D.C.'s deputy mayor had called for the commission

to, quote, embrace diversity and advance equity as a remedy to the legacy of discrimination that shapes D.C.'s surroundings to this day, end quote. So Biden ended up replacing those four men with four other individuals of various ethnicities and backgrounds, including two women and two men. at the time a White House spokesperson said that the administration was, quote, conducting a thorough review of several councils, commissions, and advisory boards. And as a part of that review, we may remove individuals whose continued membership on the board would not serve the public interest, end quote. And that was the first time in the commission's history that commissioners had ever been

removed by a president. Now, can CFA commissioners legally be removed by the president? Sure. As a general rule, if a president appoints an individual, the president can also remove them. Because the entire commission is appointed by the president, both Biden's 2021 removals and Trump's current removals are well within presidential authority. In response to this week's move to remove all six sitting commissioners, a White House spokesperson told NPR that the administration is, quote, preparing to appoint a new slate of members to the commission that are more aligned with President Trump's America first policies. And quote. But naturally, with the recent teardown of the East Wing and the new planned ballroom, people have questions as to whether the timing is connected. But it's important to note that even if the commissioners had opposed Trump's plans for the ballroom or any other project for that matter, it would not have stopped the administration from moving forward with its plans. The CFA does not hold that much weight. The CFA is purely advisory. In other words, board members are only meant

to inform presidential choices and make recommendations, but they do not have veto power over presidential projects. So again, we don't have many answers as to why exactly these commissioners were fired other than that the administration is looking for people that are more aligned with Trump's America First policies. But as far as permissibility, the firings are well within the president's authority. Time for some quick hitters. Remember in last Thursday's episode how we talked about the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowing the administration to deploy National Guard troops in Oregon? And as a part of that discussion, we talked about how the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals works. And more specifically, we said it's usually only three judge panels that

hear cases when they make it to the Ninth Circuit, but that the full Ninth Circuit can agree to reconsider a case if they feel that it's necessary. That is the update. The full Ninth Circuit will now reconsider whether Trump can deploy the National Guard to Oregon. The Ninth Circuit said Tuesday that the previous three judge panel's ruling has been vacated until the full Ninth Circuit can reconsider the case, which means that for now, the lower court order prohibiting the administration from deploying the National Guard remains in effect. Senate Majority Leader John Thune is saying that a lot more conversations are happening between senators and suggested that next week's elections might provide the catalyst needed

to end the current impasse in the Senate. Asked what the path for ending the shutdown is. Thune said, quote, we just need five more Democrats, end quote. And he reiterated his belief that the Democratic leadership will not be dictating the final resolution. But all this to say, John Thune and other senators have said that there are more, a lot more conversations happening now to attempt to end the shutdown. President Trump has directed the Pentagon to begin nuclear weapons testing immediately, saying the U.S. will be testing on an equal basis with Russia and China. If tests resume, it would end a 33-year pause. Trump's full statement

reads, quote, the United States has more nuclear weapons than any other country. This was accomplished, including a complete update and renovation of existing weapons during my first term in office. Because of the tremendous destructive power, I hated to do it, but had no choice. Russia is second and China is a distant third, but will be even within five years. Because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our nuclear weapons on an equal basis. That process will begin immediately. And speaking of the president, President Trump said Wednesday that it's, quote, pretty clear, end quote, that he's not allowed to run for a third term. He told reporters on an Air Force one flight to South Korea, quote, I would say that if you read it, referring to the Constitution, it's pretty clear I'm not allowed to run. It's too bad, but we have a lot of great people. And quote. And speaking of South Korea, President Trump said Wednesday that South Korea would pay the United States $350 billion in exchange. for lower tariffs as part of a recently announced trade deal. The president also said

South Korea has agreed to purchase U.S. oil and gas in vast quantities, and that the country also agreed to investments in the U.S. by South Korean business people and companies that will exceed $600 billion. Tariffs on U.S. imports of Korean auto and auto parts will be set at 15 percent, down from 25 percent, which will put them on par with Japan, who also pays 15 percent after Tokyo reached a deal with the U.S. And the Fed announced its second interest rate cut of the year, bringing the rate to a new range of 3.75 to 4%. This is also the lowest level in three years.

Why should you care? Because when the Fed cuts rates, borrowing gets cheaper. That means lower costs on things like car loans, some student loans, credit cards, home equity lines. Speaking of things you should care about, I have a newsletter, new newsletter, going out tomorrow morning. If you want more quick hitters across various genres of news, including, but, well, yeah, I was going to say including but not limited to, but no, this is actually the full list, politics, pop culture, health, business, and international news, be sure to click the free newsletter link in the show notes of this episode. All you need is an email address and you are good to go. And now it's time for rumor has it, my weekly segment where I address recent rumors submitted by all of you and either confirm, dispel, or add context.

week, we have one. Rumor has it that ICE is, quote, rapidly expanding its surveillance of your social media, end quote. This claim might be true, but we need to add more context. So we know that last Friday, ICE procured a $5.7 million social media surveillance system from Zignal Labs, which is a digital intelligence firm that uses AI technology to process social media posts and inform the strategy of their clients. So the software is described by Zignol as capable of processing billions of social media posts a day across more than 100 languages using AI tools like machine learning, computer vision, and optical character recognition. So basically, these companies purchase the services of Zignal Labs. And in return, they get access to Zignal's real-time

monitoring tools, which then allows them to track trends on social media, track sense, sentiment, track keywords, track conversations along social media to identify whether it's emerging narratives or potential security risks. It just allows them to track behavior across social media. Zignal's current clients include but are not limited to the Washington Post, Airbnb, both the DNC and RNC, the Treasury Department, the State Department, and now ICE. What we don't know is exactly how ICE plans to use Zignals services. Okay. So the contract indicates the purchase, but it lacks detail on operations. Now, what makes this deal stand out is not that ICE is monitoring social media. It's the scale and sophistication of the technology involved.

So ICE has used social media analytics tools before, and it currently still does, but the contract with Zignal is one of its largest and most advanced surveillance contracts to date, given that Zignal's system can analyze billions of posts per day across 100 different languages. So for context, earlier ICE contracts with firms like Shadow Dragon and Peterva were typically under a million dollars and focused on much smaller scale open source data scraping and visualization. The Zignal Labs deal is much larger in amount and relies on AI for processing. So it's a bit different. But keep in mind, ICE also signed a contract, and this is just to illustrate the history that ICE has with similar social media and AI firms. But ICE also signed a contract last month with Clearview AI,

which is a facial recognition software that helps law enforcement generate leads to identify suspects, witnesses, and victims using facial recognition. ICE signed a separate $2 million contract last month with Paragon Solutions, which is a cybersecurity and data analytics contractor that helps agencies process digital information to assist in criminal investigations. And that contract actually was initiated under the Biden administration in 2024. It was just signed last month, but that was that contract was initiated under Biden. In 2020 and 2021, I signed contracts with a company called Shadow Dragon, which we just talked about, which makes software that scans social media and other online platforms to show how,

people are linked to each other on social media and other platforms. And then of course, we know that ICE has used Palantir, the data mining company, since 2014, going back to the Obama administration. So if we're looking at the big picture, yes, it's true that ICE is expanding its surveillance of social media. But whether that expansion is rapid, right, quote unquote, rapid, or instead just the normal, you know, the normal course as technology evolves is subjective. Over the years, ICE's surveillance network has developed into an array of partnerships with various private tech and AI firms to support its immigration efforts. This is something ICE has been doing over the last few administrations. It's not necessarily a new effort,

though again, the services offered by Zignal specifically are more technologically advanced than past contracts. And now for some critical thinking, let's go all the way back to the Texas Tylenol lawsuits, a couple of questions meant for everyone. So the first question I have is, when studies show an association between a product and a condition, but not causation, what should companies actually have to disclose? And I want you to actually think beyond Tylenol here, right? So imagine that a study finds an association between coffee and heart palpitations. But there's no proof that that coffee actually causes heart palpitations. There's just a possible link. Should every coffee brand have to disclose that possible link on its label? Or does the obligation

to disclose only come into play when there's proof of, you know, actual causation? And why is your answer, whatever it is? And then here's your second set of questions. As we know, and as we talked about, the FDA actually discourages companies from adding warnings that contradict its own guidance. In your opinion, who should have the final say in what appears on a label? Is it federal regulators or is it the companies themselves? And we can add one more layer to that. If a company follows federal rules exactly, regardless of what they are, do you feel as if that company can still be accused of misleading customers? Why or why not? That's what I have for you today. I hope you have a fantastic weekend. Happy Halloween to all who celebrates.

and I will talk to you again on Monday.