UNBIASED - Outlets Refuse to Sign New Pentagon Press Policy, State Dept. Revokes Visas Over Charlie Kirk Commentary, Supreme Court Weighs Voting Rights Act, Leaked Text Messages, and More.

Episode Date: October 16, 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: Almost All Outlets Refuse to Sign Pentagon Press Policy; Hand Over Their Press Badges (0:12) State Department Says It Has Revoked Visas Of Those Who Celebrated Charlie Kirk's Assassination (12:48) Supreme Court Weighs Whether to Narrow Voting Rights Act; Louisiana's Newest Congressional Maps on the Chopping Block (17:36) Leaked Text Messages from Young Republicans; Vance Responds By Comparing Leaked Text Messages from Virginia AG Candidate (31:28) Quick Hitters: Trump Confirms CIA Operations in Venezuela, Judge Pauses Federal Layoffs for 30 Agencies, DOJ Seeking Indictment Against Former Trump National Security Adviser, Trump to Meet Putin in Budapest (42:10) Critical Thinking Segment (46:20) 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 16th. Let's talk about some news. We're going to start with the Defense Department press pass saga. A lot of you had a lot of questions. So let's talk about it. The latest here is that several major media outlets announced that they will not sign the Pentagon's new press policy.

And they've since turned in their press passes. These outlets include but are not limited to CNN, Fox News, NPR, The Atlantic, ABC, CBS, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal Newsmax, and the AP. So far, One America News is the only outlet that has publicly come forward to say that they have signed on to the new policy and they will continue covering the Pentagon. For some context here, last month, the Defense Department sent out a memo to the press outlining a new press policy. And that press policy required reporters to have all information cleared with the department before they were able to publish it. You might remember when I initially reported on this. There was one section of the memo that was particularly controversial. And that section read in part, quote, Department of War remains committed to transparency to promote accountability and

public trust. However, Department of War information must be a for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified. In other words, all information out of the department had to be approved before the press could release it to the public. It did not matter whether the information was classified or unclassified. All information was to be pre-approved. So after some pretty significant backlash, the Department of Defense ended up slightly revising that press policy. And they released a new version of the policy. So per the revised version, journalists technically aren't barred from reporting or publishing stories, you know, on the military using information

that's deemed to be sensitive or unclassified. But the Pentagon does have the ability to deem certain information a security or safety risk when the department is asked for it by journalists and then refuse to release it if they deem it to be a security or safety risk. So in other words, journalists can still investigate and report on the military using sensitive and unclassified information. They're just not guaranteed access to that information because the Pentagon can always choose to label it as a security or safety risk. In effect, reporters can only report report on information that the Pentagon approved. So in practice, the revised version actually isn't much different from the original version of the policy. It's just worded slightly differently.

So the newer policy states that when journalists receive and subsequently publish unsolicited, classified or sensitive information from government sources, they are generally protected in doing so by the First Amendment. But the policy also says, quote, if you solicit, the disclosure of such information or otherwise encourage defense department personnel to violate laws and policies concerning the disclosure of such information, such conduct may weigh in the consideration of whether you pose a security or safety risk. End quote. Now, the department describes solicitation as calls for tips encouraging military personnel to share

non-public information. So basically the policy says if a journalist receives, you know, sensitive, classified, unclassified information that they didn't ask for and subsequently publish it, that's usually protected by the First Amendment. But if a journalist asks someone in the department to leak information or encourages them to break the rules by doing so, the Pentagon can easily deny that request by classifying it as a safety or security risk. And by the way, asking people on the inside for non-public information is something that many reporters, if not most reporters do. This is how we get access to all of these reports from, you know, anonymous sources or people familiar with the matter. This is how it's done. It's pretty standard practice in

journalism. So this was the provision of the policy that outlets are taking the biggest issue with, because essentially what the department is saying is we'll tell you what's okay to publish, but for anything else, anything we haven't deemed public information, we can deny the release of because your request for that information is a safety or security risk. The policy also says that reporters should be aware that agency personnel can face adverse consequences for unauthorized disclosures and that asking personnel to, quote, commit criminal acts, end quote, by disclosing unauthorized information is not protected under the First Amendment. Now, I know what you guys are probably thinking. Is it a criminal act for a department

employee to disclose unauthorized information? The answer is that it depends on what kind of information is being disclosed. So if the department employee is disclosing classified information or information that falls under certain protected categories like national defense information, nuclear secrets, certain intelligence data, then yes, disclosing this kind of information without authorization is a crime under federal law. If the information isn't classified but still protected by some law or regulation, disclosure also can be considered a crime or at the very least a violation of federal rules. depending on the statute that protects that information.

Now, if the information is unclassified and it's not legally protected, sharing it with reporters generally is not a crime. It might violate agency policy or internal rules, which, you know, could come with administrative or disciplinary actions, but it's not an actual crime. The second question you might have is, is asking a department employee for unauthorized information, protected under the First Amendment. And this answer is a bit more nuanced. So the actual act of asking for information is protected.

But actually obtaining information or encouraging a federal employee to leak information is not protected. Basically, journalists are allowed to ask questions, right? So simply asking a federal employee for information, including something that might be confidential or sensitive, that's typically protected speech. the First Amendment protects the act of gathering news. However, that protection stops if the journalist actively encourages or pressures a federal employee to break the law or violate agency rules. So if a journalist says, hey, is there anything going on inside the Pentagon that the public

should know about? That's completely legal, completely protected. If a government employee voluntarily leaks information in response to that question, you know, without being pushed or without being coerced, the journalist is not breaking the law by publishing that information. This is what happened with many famous leaks, including the Pentagon Papers. But where it gets a little riskier is if a journalist says something like, hey, can you get me a copy of that classified memo or, hey, use this encrypted app to send me those classified documents. that could cross the line into soliciting an unlawful disclosure because the journalist isn't

just reporting on information that was voluntarily given to them anymore, right? They're actively helping someone commit the illegal act of unauthorized disclosure of classified information. So the Supreme Court said in a 2001 case called Bartnicki v. Vopper that journalists can publish information that was illegally obtained by someone else as long as they didn't participate in the illegal act of getting it. So just to kind of bring this all back home and bring this back to the policy language, when the policy says that, you know, and it attempts to remind reporters that asking Defense Department personnel to commit criminal acts by disclosing

unauthorized information isn't protected under the First Amendment, it's not necessarily as simple or as straightforward as that in the real world. It's actually a bit new. nuanced, as you can probably tell from that discussion. But anyway, members of the press had until Tuesday to sign this new policy, otherwise they had to hand over their press badge, and they would no longer be allowed access to the Pentagon. Many outlets across the political spectrum refused to do so, citing limits on press freedom and, you know, First Amendment violations. So on Tuesday, we saw NBC News, ABC News, CBS, CNN, Fox News, those five outlets issued a joint statement. And what they said as, quote, today we join virtually every other news organization in declining to agree to

the Pentagon's new requirements, which would restrict journalists' ability to keep the nation and the world informed of important national security issues. The policy is without precedent and threatens core journalistic protections. We will continue to cover the U.S. military, as each of our organizations has done for many decades, upholding the principles of a free and independent press. end quote. So while those five outlets were the only outlets to sign onto that joint statement, several other outlets have also refused to sign on to this policy as well. The Associated Press, Reuters, Bloomberg News, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Guardian, the Atlantic, the Financial Times, Politico, NPR, the Hill, News Nation, Newsmax,

and more. The list literally keeps going. So some of these other outlets posted their own statements on platforms like X, so for example, the New York Times, wrote, quote, journalists from the New York Times will not sign the Pentagon's revised press policy, which threatens to punish them for ordinary news gathering protected by the First Amendment. Since the policy was first announced, we have expressed concerns that it constrains how journalists can report on the military, which is funded by nearly one trillion in taxpayer dollars annually. The public has a right to know how the government and military are operating. end quote. Heggseth responded to this post, the Atlantic Post, and the Washington Post's post, with a simple hand-waving emoji as if just to say goodbye.

Heg Seth also wrote in his own post on X, quote, Pentagon Access is a privilege, not a right. So here is the Department of Wars press credentialing for dummies. Press no longer roams free. Press must wear a visible badge. credentialed press no longer permitted to solicit criminal acts done pentagon now has the same rules as every u.s military installation end quote as i mentioned earlier in the story only one outlet has publicly come forward saying they've signed the policy that is the conservative uh news network one america news so as of tuesday there's really only one outlet that has access to the pentagon as far as reporting goes. So far, a formal legal challenge has not yet been filed, but I do anticipate

these outlets will come together, or at least some journalist organizations and associations will come together and file a legal challenge. And if they do, I will, of course, let you know. And just as a quick note, if you want more information about the actual legalities of this policy, so whether the policy is legal, whether it violates the First Amendment, et cetera, I highly recommend tuning into my September 23rd episode. I did a deep dive there. That was when the policy was first announced. And I really went into the legalities of it more so than I did in this episode. So that is that. Today's story split is a little weird. We're actually going to take our first break a little bit early. When we come back, we'll talk about the visa revocations over Charlie Kirk's

commentary. And we'll break down the Voting Rights Act case that went before the Supreme Court yesterday. Welcome back. The State Department announced that it revoked the visas of at least six foreign nationals for utilizing rhetoric that according to the department celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk. The State Department's ex post reads, quote, the United States has no obligation to host foreigners who wish death on Americans. The State Department continues to identify visa holders who celebrated the heinous assassination of Charlie Kirk. Here are just a few examples of aliens who are no longer welcome in the United States, end quote. The X thread then goes on to include six different examples of foreigners who have had their visas revoked. And I am going to

read a couple of those examples along with the posts made by each individual, which presumably led to their visa revocation. But I do want to warn you that these posts contain some explicit language. So if you're with your kids, you may just want to skip ahead about a minute. I'm trying to get better about issuing those warnings ahead of time. So the first example provided by the State Department says, quote, in Argentine National said that Kirk devoted his entire life spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric, and deserves to burn in hell. Visa revoked. End quote. That post is accompanied by a screenshot of a user's ex post, presumably from the Argentine National in question, but we can't tell for sure because the username and profile picture

are both blacked out. Nonetheless, the screenshot that is attached to the State Department's post reads, quote, just came on here to say, Charlie Kirk can rest in fucking piss. And yet again, if you have any empathy at all for people like this, you can go ahead and remove yourself as my friend. I do not give a fuck about the death of a person who devoted his entire life, spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric. It's hot as fuck where this man currently is and it's deserved. End quote. The second example. says, quote, a South African national mocked Americans grieving the loss of Kirk saying they're hurt that the racist rally ended in attempted murderdom and alleging, or saying that

the South African alleged that Kirk was used to Asherturf a movement of white nationalist trailer trash, visa revoked, end quote. The accompanying screenshot with that post reads quote, Neanderthals can't have their cake and eat it. This weekend, they went openly anti-black racist and now they're hurt that the racist rally ended ended in attempted murderdom. Charlie Kirk won't be remembered as a hero. He was used to astroturf a movement of white nationalist trailer trash. End quote. So those were two examples that the State Department gave in its thread on X. In total, there were six examples. Three of the examples were accompanied by screenshots of posts that were presumably

made by the individuals that had their visa revoked. The other three posts did not have any attached screenshot. It was just an allegation, if you will. So naturally, a lot of people are wondering about the legality of visa revocations like this. And the answer is that it's not entirely clear. I'm sure you're not surprised. Nothing in the law is ever, you know, totally 100% clear. But under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the executive branch and specifically the State Department has very broad discretion over visas, including the power to revoke them. The law actually allows the Secretary of State to revoke a visa at any time and in his discretion.

That is the exact language included in the law. When it comes to a court challenge, the legal precedent heavily favors the government. So courts generally defer to the executive branch when it comes to immigration and foreign policy matters, especially where political expression is involved. In fact, there's a 1999 Supreme Court case where the court held eight to one that courts generally cannot even review deportation decisions, even if they appear to be politically motivated because Congress specifically gave that discretion to the executive branch. There is an older Supreme Court case from 1945. It's called Bridges v. Wixen that said lawfully present immigrants cannot be punished or deported just because of their speech or political beliefs. But more recent cases, including that 1999 case that we just talked about, have limited that protection, especially

when it comes to people outside the United States or those seeking entry. So while these individuals could try to challenge their visa revocations, it's very likely the courts would just defer to the State Department and decline to intervene at all because that's what precedent tells us. All right, moving on, let's talk about this Voting Rights Act case that the Supreme Court heard yesterday. We are going to start from the beginning with this one. I will warn you, it is a little bit confusing. So just make sure you're able to fully pay attention if you want to complete understanding of what's going on here. I know some people listen to this podcast while they're doing whatever else it might be, whether it's, you know, housework, whether they're working.

This is just one of those stories that kind of requires your full focus. So this case, we're began in 2022. Okay. And Louisiana had adopted a congressional district map with only one majority black district out of six total districts despite the fact that Louisiana is one third black. In other words, black voters make up roughly 33% of Louisiana, but they only had a real voting power in about 17% of the districts. So a group of black voters in Louisiana, sued arguing that this map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits voting practices that impede the ability to vote based on race, color, or minority status. So under Section 2, no voting map or voting law can be used in a way

that dilutes voting power based on race or color. And this doesn't just ban laws or maps that are intentionally racist or discriminatory. It also covers those maps and laws that have a discriminatory effect, even if that wasn't the intent. So black voters sued and they won. And the judge said that Louisiana needed to redraw its map to include a second majority black district. This ruling was eventually upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Consequently, in 2024, a new map was drawn to include a second majority black district. This time, though, a group of individuals who refer to themselves as non-African American sued. And they argued that this new map now unconstitutionally sorted voters by race and therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

As we know, the Equal Protection Clause says that everyone has to be treated equally under the law. So the group of non-African-American voters couldn't challenge the new map under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it's not that their voting power was being diluted. Instead, their issue was that the new map relied too much on race when drawing the district lines, basically saying that the state sorted people by race instead of treating everyone equally. So that was the new argument from the non-African-American voters. And this time, the non-African-American voters got a ruling in their favor. And the court held that the new map violated the Equal Protection Clause by sorting voters based on race. And it prohibited the state from using that new map in future elections, including the 2024 midterms that were approaching at the time. But the black voters in the state of Louisiana, who were now on the same side,

appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court actually put the lower courts ruling on hold temporarily and said, you know what, Louisiana, you can go ahead and use this new map in the upcoming elections. So that's what they did. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court scheduled oral arguments for March of this year. Interestingly, the justices heard arguments this past March as planned, but just before they took their summer recess at the end of June, they went ahead and issued an order saying that the case, was actually going to be re-argued in the fall. So that is why this case was argued again yesterday. And very interestingly, Louisiana has sort of flip-flopped on its position since arguments in March. So initially, back in 2022, Louisiana defended the original one majority black district map. Okay. Then once they lost that case and they redrew the map in 2024, they defended the new 2024 map. In fact, when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in March, Louisiana argued that the map should be upheld. And the reason why, just to quickly touch on why

they defended the new map, is because even though they had to include this second majority black district, they redrew the other lines to heavily favor Republicans. And they've, they've acknowledged this in court, that this is nothing, this isn't speculation. They've acknowledged this. because partisan gerrymandering is okay. Gerrymandering based on politics, that's fine. It's racial gerrymandering that's not okay. So the way that they drew the lines favored the Republican incumbents in Congress. And so they wanted to keep that second map that they had to draw in 2024.

So in this case went to the Supreme Court in March, they argued for the map to be upheld. As we know, this case had to be re-argued yesterday. And yesterday, Louisiana actually changes course. and it says, no, no, no, actually, the court should just rethink the Voting Rights Act precedents entirely. So now Louisiana says that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as it's currently being interpreted, forces states to discriminate by race and is therefore unconstitutional when it requires race-based districting. Basically, the attorney for Louisiana is now arguing that it only drew the 2024 map under protest. because courts essentially force them to do so, but that section two of the Voting Rights Act itself is unconstitutional when it forces states to consider race in redistricting.

So there's a lot going on here. There were basically three sides arguing this case. You had the state of Louisiana, you had the black voters, and then you had the group that calls themselves the non-African American voters. So the state of Louisiana argued yesterday that, section two of the Voting Rights Act should be deemed unconstitutional when it forces states to consider race in redistricting. Black voters argued that the new map should stand because its goal, as previously stated by the state of Louisiana, was to promote its Republican incumbents. So the primary goal was not

race-based, rather it was based on politics. Because again, remember, political gerrymandering, it's fine. It's race-based gerrymandering. It's fine. It's race-based gerrymandering. that's illegal. So they're arguing, no, no, no, this map was drawn based on politics and therefore it should stand. They want the new map to stand because it includes that second majority black district. So then finally, we have the non-African American voters. And they countered these arguments or the opposing arguments by saying the state first decided to draw the second majority black district because of racial targets imposed by the court and then considered how to draw the map in a way that would protect Republicans. So they're arguing that the drawers of the map did rely

on race and the map therefore violates the equal protection clause and should be struck down. Okay. So I warned you this was very, very complex is it's definitely not, it's not an easy to understand case. There's a lot of, a lot of parts here. The core question for the justices is whether the new map, which was drawn to remedy a Voting Rights Act violation, goes too far by sorting voters too much by race and therefore might possibly violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Now, keep in mind that in 2023 in a case called Milligan, the Supreme Court noted that in certain situations, states are allowed to to conduct race-based redistricting to remedy maps that violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

So one might think, oh, well, if the court allows race-based redistricting to remedy Section 2 violations, then this new map is completely fine. But Chief Justice Roberts, the author, actually, of the Milligan opinion, seemed to suggest during oral arguments yesterday that the Milligan case shouldn't necessarily dictate the outcome of this Louisiana case because there are differences between the two. So it's really not as clear as you might think it would be. Justice Kagan pushed back on Louisiana's oral arguments saying Louisiana was simply just recycling arguments that the court had already rejected in Milligan. Justice Kavanaugh emphasized that race-based remedies can be acceptable in some situations, but that they shouldn't

last forever and that there should be there should eventually be an end point. Justice Barrett questioned whether Louisiana ever truly believed that it violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in the first place, suggesting that might weaken its justification for using race in drawing its new map. And then Justice Thomas and Justice Barrett both raised doubts about whether courts can justify a race-based map before a final finding that a violation occurred. Because what really prompted this case initially back in 2022 is the court finding that the map likely violated the Voting Rights Act. And that's what prompted the redrawing of a new map. So Justice Barrett and Justice Thomas were basically saying, well, you know, should the court come to a final finding

that a violation occurred before it can justify a race-based map or is a likelihood of a violation sufficient? So that was their question. Based on oral arguments, the more conservative of justices, which are Thomas Alito and Gorsuch, seemed the most ready to limit or even eliminate aspects of Section 2 that allow race-based districting. Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett appeared a bit more cautious. They didn't go as far as entertaining the idea of getting rid of Section 2, but they questioned how much and how long race should play a role in drawing districts. Chief Justice Roberts seemed open to distinguishing this case.

from Milligan, as we talked about, which kind of suggests he might avoid a full reversal of Milligan. And then the liberal justices, Kagan, Jackson, and Sotomayor, they pushed back against weakening section two and defended the need for race-conscious remedies where they're necessary. So from here, the justices will issue a decision likely towards the end of June. We could get it earlier, maybe sometime in the spring, but maybe not, maybe June. As far as what that ruling could look like, There are a few different avenues the court could take. So we'll go from potential rulings that would result in the biggest change to the ruling that would result in no change at all. First, the court could rule that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional when it requires race-based districting.

And this is what Louisiana wants. So in other words, the court could say states can't be forced to draw districts based on race, even if it's to fix racial. discrimination. This would be considered a major rollback of the Voting Rights Act, and it would make it much harder for minority groups to win future redistricting challenges, and it would also cause states to redraw their maps based on this new precedent. A ruling like this is less likely because justices, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Roberts seemed more hesitant to go this far. A more likely avenue would be to limit Section 2's power. In other words, the court could keep it. section two, but make it harder to prove a violation. So for example, they might say that, you know,

race can only be considered if there's a clear final determination that a state intentionally discriminated. Or maybe they say that race can't predominate over neutral factors like geography or politics. So in that case, if they ruled in that way, section two would still exist, but it would be harder to use it successfully in court because states could just claim that their drawings are simply political and then, you know, under this ruling, that would be sufficient. A third option would be to rule narrowly for Louisiana. So basically the court would say, hey, look, Louisiana went too far by sorting voters by race, but we're not going to go ahead and change the Voting Rights Act itself.

And then finally, the court could just uphold Louisiana's current map, the one that was drawn in 2024 and uphold Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and nothing would change. a ruling like this would basically just reaffirm the 2023 Milligan ruling, which allowed race conscious maps when they're needed to fix discrimination under Section 2. So that's what we're looking at here. Of course, once the justices do release their decision, I will break that down for you as well. Sorry that was so complex.

I did my best to kind of, you know, break it down and summarize it the best I could without getting too deep into the legalities and being too confusing. I think with a story like that, it's just how do you capture the full picture without, you know, talking about the nuance of it all. So hopefully I didn't confuse you too much. Let's take our second break here. When we come back, we'll talk about some recently leaked text messages. We'll also do quick hitters and then we'll finish with critical thinking. Welcome back. Politico has exclusively reported that a group of young Republicans carried on a racist, misogynistic, and home. homophobic group chat that is now being widely reported by many outlets. And many of you have

asked me to talk about it. So let's do it. We'll talk about the leaked text messages. And then we'll talk about Vice President Vance's statement on it, which is now making headlines and kind of also at the same time, we'll tie in the recently surfaced messages from a Democratic candidate in Virginia. So basically there's this group called the Young Republicans National Federation, more commonly known as the Young Republicans. It was established back in 1931, and there's two components to this. So there's a national organization, and then there are chapters in each individual state. So per the organization's website, the young Republicans are, quote, fighting for the future of the Republican Party. Together, our mission is to recruit new young Republicans and engage young voters

with the Republican Party, train the future leaders of the United States, and elect Republican candidates from the top to the bottom of the ballot across the country. Our vision is to empower young conservatives to recruit, train, and elect leaders forging a united and prosperous America. Since its creation, the YRNF has established itself as the premier Republican youth organization providing essential grassroots support for Republican candidates and conservative issues on the local state and national levels. End quote. So that's a bit about the actual organization. And there is a group of leaders that represent this organization known as the board of directors. The board of directors includes a chairman, a co-chair, a vice chair, a treasurer,

an assistant treasurer, a secretary, and an assistant secretary, an auditor, and then four regional leaders. So one for the northeast, one for the Midwest, one for the south, and one for the west. These individuals are, they're younger, by the way. These are not older individuals. They're, I think they range an age from 18 to 30 something. And so the board of directors are part of the national organization. And then outside of the national organization, there are a variety of leaders that represent the chapters across individual states. So these leaked messages consist of almost 3,000 pages of chats spanning from January through mid-August of this year. And they come from leaders of the organization in New York, Kansas, Arizona, and Vermont. So these are state leaders

that we're talking about, not the national organization board. Included in these chats were some individuals who are already involved in politics, including a state senator, as well as an advisor currently working with the small business administration. To give me an example of one of the chats that's receiving the most attention, this was a chat about an upcoming vote on whether Peter Gwinta, who at the time was chair of the New York State Young Republicans chapter, should become the chair of the Young Republican National Federation. And Gwinta sent a message to this group saying, quote, everyone that votes know is going to the gas chamber. And everyone that endorsed, but then votes for us, is going to the gas chamber. And quote, the vice chair of the

New York State Young Republicans chapter then responded, when do we start bullying, dude? And then says, if they vote for us, why would they be gassed? Gwinta responds because they only want true believers. And then another person jumps in and says, quote, can we fix the showers? Gas chambers don't fit the Hitler aesthetic. End quote. Another person then chimes in and says, quote, I'm ready to watch people burn now. End quote.

Then the person that asked if they could fix the showers says, quote, we got to pretend that we like them and say, hey, come on in. take a nice shower and relax boom they're dead end quote in a separate conversation guinta shared that his flight to charleston had landed safely and he wrote quote if your pilot is a she and she looks ten shades darker than someone from sicily just end it there scream the no no word end quote since these messages were released guinta has responded saying in part quote these logs were sourced by way of extortion and provided to Politico by the very same people conspiring against me. What's most disheartening is that despite my unwavering support of President Trump since 2016, rogue members of his administration, including Gavin Wax, have participated in this

conspiracy to ruin me publicly simply because I challenged them privately. I'm so sorry to those offended by the insensitive and inexcusable language found within the more than 28,000 messages of a private group chat that I created during my campaign to lead the young Republicans. While I take complete responsibility, I have no way of verifying their accuracy, and I'm deeply concerned that the message logs in question may have been deceptively doctored. End quote. Another individual involved in those texts has also issued an apology, but some have declined to comment on the matter.

In other conversations, texts were sent that said, quote, I'd go to the zoo if I wanted to watch monkey play ball, end quote, and that was a. a reply someone sent when they asked if they were watching an NBA playoff game. In another conversation, someone said that the Michigan vice chair's delegates would vote for the most right-wing person. And another user replied to that saying, great, I love Hitler. In another instance, someone in the chat wrote, quote, the Spanish came to America and had sex with every single woman. Someone then replied sex, question mark, it was rape. And another person says, epic. Politico reported that Various slurs and epithets were used to describe black and gay people.

And I think they said that more than, there were more than 251 different slurs and epithets in these text messages. The board of directors of the Young Republican National Federation condemned the group chats on Tuesday, called for the immediate resignation of all individuals that were involved. Other Republican leaders like Representative at least Stefanik and New York Senator Rob Orte have publicly denounced the chat as well. vice president vance on the other hand he is making headlines for taking a slightly different approach so he went ahead and compared these messages to the recently leaked messages from a democratic candidate running for attorney general of virginia named j jones and this is another topic that you guys had asked me to talk about earlier in the week so i'm kind of just sort of tying everything in here in 2022 jones sent messages directed at the then republican house speaker todd gilbert so

So Jones said, quote, three people, two bullets. Gilbert, Hitler, and Pol Pot. Gilbert gets two bullets to the head. Spoiler, put Gilbert in the crew with the two worst people you know, and he receives both bullets every time. End quote. The other person in the chat, who was a former colleague of Jones, responds back to Jones saying, Jay, please stop.

And Jones responds, L.O.L. OK, okay. At one point, Jones writes, quote, I mean, do I think Todd and Jennifer are evil and that they're breeding little fascists. Yes. And quote. Jones also reportedly said on the phone to the same colleague that he was texting with that he wished Gilbert's wife could watch her own child die in her arms so that Gilbert might reconsider his political views. Those comments reportedly prompted Jones's colleague to hang up the phone. And then in text messages that followed Jones's colleague wrote, quote, you weren't trying to understand you were talking about hoping Jennifer Gilbert's children would die.

Jones replied, quote, yes, I've told you this before. Only when people feel pain personally, do they move on policy, end quote. So Jones has since issued a statement saying, quote, I want to issue my deepest apology to Speaker Gilbert and his family. Reading back, those words made me sick to my stomach. I'm embarrassed, ashamed, and sorry. I have reached out to Speaker Gilbert to apologize directly to him, his wife, Jennifer, and their children. I cannot take back what I said. I can only take full accountability and offer my sincere apology. end quote. So Vance, in remarking on these leaked text messages from some of the young Republican leaders, compared those messages to Jones's messages. And he shared a screenshot of Jones's text to X, writing along with the screenshot, quote, this is far worse than anything said in a college group chat. And the guy who said it could become the attorney general of Virginia. I refuse to join the Pearl Clunchet. pearl clutching when powerful people call for political violence, end quote. Later, appearing on the Charlie Kirk show, Vance was asked about his post that has since gone viral, and Vance said, quote, look, I'll let the tweet speak for itself. I'll say a couple of additional things. First of all, a person who is very politically powerful, who is about to become one of the most powerful law enforcement officers in the country, that person seriously wishing for political violence and political assassination is one thousand times worse than what a bunch of young people, a bunch of

kids, say in a group chat, however offensive it might be. That's just the reality. And quote, he then goes on to say that kids need to be more cautious of what they post on the internet, saying, quote, the reality is that kids do stupid things, especially young boys. They tell edgy offensive jokes. And I really don't want us to grow up in a country where a kid telling a stupid joke, telling a very offensive stupid joke, is caused to ruin their lives. And by the way, if they were left-wing kids telling stupid left-wing jokes, I would also not want their lives to be ruined because they're saying something stupid in a private group chat, end quote. So that is the story.

If you want to read more about those young Republican messages, I do have the political article linked in the sources section. I, of course, have all of these sources for this story in the sources section for this episode. However, I mentioned the political article because the political article is pretty long. I only touched on some of the things that were included in that article. So if you do want to read it in full, it is in the sources section of this episode. And you can always find my sources by going to my website, unbiasednetwork.com. Or you can just go to each episode description and then click the hyperlink where it says all sources can be found here.

Now it's time for some quick hitters. President Trump has confirmed that he authorized unspecified CIA action in Venezuela. The confirmation came just hours after the New York Times had reported that the administration had authorized the CIA to carry out covert lethal action in Venezuela. And of course, as we know, the United States has also been authorizing military strikes on boats in the Caribbean that are said to be carrying drugs. So during a press conference on Wednesday, a reporter asked the president why he authorized the CIA to go into Venezuela. And Trump responded in part, quote, I authorized for two reasons, really. number one, they have emptied their prisons into the United States of America, and the other thing is drugs. We have a lot of drugs coming in from Venezuela, and a lot of the Venezuela drugs come through the sea,

so you get to see that, but we're going to stop them by land also. End quote. The same reporter asks the president if the CIA has authority to take out Venezuela's president, Nicholas Maduro. Trump responded that he didn't want to answer a question like that and that it's a ridiculous question for him to be given. He then clarified that the question itself wasn't really ridiculous. it's just that it would be ridiculous for him to answer it. The CIA has not commented on the operations in Venezuela. A federal judge has ordered the administration to temporarily pause the federal

layoffs amid the shutdown. The plaintiff unions that are suing the administration have accused the administration of using federal employees as pawns to impose political pressure on the administration's perceived opponents in Congress. The judge granted the plaintiff's request for a temporary, restraining order, finding that the plaintiffs are likely to prove once arguments are heard that what the administration has done, that being using the lapse in government spending to implement layoffs, is illegal in excess of authority, and arbitrary and capricious.

The temporary ruling pauses the implementation of layoffs that are already underway and blocks any additional layoff notices from being sent out at more than 30 agencies where the unions represent employees. Keep in mind that the judge only has the authority to block actions with respect to the agencies that the plaintiff unions represent in this case. The judge cannot block action with respect to all federal agencies because the unions that are suing the administration don't have the standing to request that. The DOJ is expected to ask a Maryland grand jury to indict John Bolton Trump's former national security advisor in connection with alleged mishandling of classified documents. The news comes after FBI agents searched Bolton's home and office in August, seizing various

documents labeled secret, confidential, and classified. Although the exact charges are not yet public, they are believed to involve violations of laws governing the handling of national defense information. Bolton has denied any wrongdoing. And President Trump said today he would be meeting with President Putin in Budapest, but did not specify a date. he wrote on truth social in part quote i have just concluded my telephone conversation with president Vladimir Putin of russia and it was a very productive one president Putin congratulated me

and the united states on the great accomplishment of peace in the middle east something that he said has been dreamed of for centuries i actually believe that the success in the middle east will help in our negotiation in attempting to end the war with russia and ukraine at the conclusion of the call we agreed that there will be a meeting of our high level advisors next week the united states initial meeting will be led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, together with various other people, to be designated. A meeting location is to be determined. President Putin and I will then meet in an agreed-upon location, Budapest Hungary, to see if we can bring this inglorious war between Russia and Ukraine to an end. President Zelensky and I will be meeting tomorrow in the Oval Office

where we will discuss my conversation with President Putin and much more. End quote. For more quick hitters, make sure you are subscribed to my newsletter. That goes out every two. Tuesday and Friday morning. It's not just quick hitters in politics, also pop culture, business, health, and international news. You can always find the link to subscribe in each episode description. All I need from you is your email address. All right, let's do some critical thinking. We're going to revisit the Defense Department Press policy. I think this presents an interesting question that lies at the intersection of taxpayers' right to know and national security. So here's what I have for you. And these questions are for everyone. Sometimes I split them up

between supporters and opponents, but these are just general questions. As I mentioned earlier, the Pentagon is funded by nearly one trillion in taxpayer dollars each year. No department receives more money than the Pentagon. That means that every American, whether they're liberal, conservative, somewhere in between, doesn't really matter where they stand, is in a sense a shareholder in the U.S. military, right? So the question, becomes how much transparency do taxpayers deserve from this institution that they are funding? If the public is paying the bills, do we have a right to know what is being done? Or does that transparency take a back seat to national security?

Maybe we have a right to know some things, but not all things. Where would you draw that line? And who should draw that line in the real world? Should it be the government? Should it be the press? or should it be the taxpayers? Think about that. That is what I have for you today.

Thank you so much for being here. As always, have a great weekend. And I will talk to you on Monday.