UNBIASED - Space Command HQ Heads to Alabama, Judge Says National Guard Deployment Was UNLAWFUL, What's Going on With Trump's Health? And More.

Episode Date: September 4, 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: CA Judge Says Deployment of National Guard was Unlawful (1:40) DC Sues Trump Administration Over Deployment of National Guard (10:15) Judge Says Alien Enemies Act Cannot Be Used for Deportations (13:15) Trump Administration Negotiates Deal with Guatemala to Return Unaccompanied Children; Here's the Difference Between Repatriation and Deportation (17:39) Space Command Will Move to Huntsville, Alabama (22:27) Quick Hitters: FL to Do Away with Vaccine Mandates, US Strike Kills 11 on Boat, Epstein Victims' Press Conference, More Epstein Docs Released, Judge Orders Harvard Grants Unfrozen, HHS Secretary RFK Jr. Testifies Before Senate, New ICE Detention Facility Opens (29:00) Rumor Has It: Is the Newest ICE Detention Facility Named 'Camp 47' After the President? What's Going on with the President's Health? (33:03) Critical Thinking Segment (38:17) 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, September 4th. Let's talk about some news. Before we do, though, a couple of things. So number one, I decided that September is going to be the month that I double my podcast numbers. Okay. I'm just on this mission. I want to get the numbers up. I mean, I'm always trying to get the numbers up, right? But I think this month I've just decided it is my goal. to double my numbers. Now that's a crazy goal, but we're going to see if we can do it. And obviously that's on me, right? Like growing this podcast is all on me. But what you guys can do to help, and this is what I'm going to ask of you, whenever you hear an episode this month, whether it's today's episode or it's an episode next week or maybe, you know, two weeks, whatever it is, whenever you hear an episode that really resonates with you or there's a story that you feel like

I explained really well, whatever it might be. Share that episode with people that you know. And I know a lot of you already do this but let's just make an extra effort to do it this month so you can share it with your friends family members your significant other cousins whoever it might be and I think that'll really help me like I said this is this goal is all on me okay but there are ways that you can help too and just know that I very very very much appreciate when you guys share my episode and when you guys help get the word out that, you know, unbiased politics is a phenomenal show, if I do say so myself. So with that out of the way, let's now talk about some news. Earlier this week, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from using the National Guard

for law enforcement activities in California, ruling that the deployment of the National Guard violated what's called the Posse Cometatis Act. Notably and importantly, the ruling did not order the immediate removal of National Guard troops from L.A. What it did is it prohibited the troops from performing law enforcement roles. So we have to talk about a couple of things here, namely the Posse Comitatus Act and Title 10 of the U.S. Code. I'll break them both down in a way that's easily digestible, but first I want to add some color to this story. back in June, as you probably remember, President Trump federalized and deployed thousands of National Guard troops and Marines, more so troops. There were, I think, a few hundred Marines sent, but there were thousands of National Guard troops sent to California in response to the ICE protests and riots. And in response to that, the State of California filed a lawsuit challenging Trump's legal authority to send in the National Guard under Title 10 of the U.S. Code. Now, we've talked about Title 10 a handful of times, but just as a refresher, Title 10 of the U.S. Code is a federal law that allows the president to deploy the National Guard.

Typically, the National Guard is under the control of a state's governor, not the president. But under Title 10, the president has the authority to federalize the National Guard without a governor's approval in certain situations. Here's the catch, though. Title 10 can only be used in three situations. Number one, there's been an invasion of the United States by a foreign nation or there's a danger of invasion. Two, there's been a rebellion against the federal government or there's a danger of rebellion. Or three, the president is unable to execute federal laws with regular military forces. So one of those three situations has to be present for the president to invoke his authority under Title 10 and federalize the National Guard and send in troops to a state without a state governor's consent or approval. However, even if

Title 10 is lawfully invoked, okay, the actions of troops under Title 10 are limited by what's called the Posse Cometatitis Act. The Posse Cometatis Act prohibits the use of military forces for domestic law enforcement unless authorized by Congress. Because National Guard troops deployed under Title 10 are considered federal troops because they were federalized under Title 10, they are limited by the Possecomitatis Act, which means National Guard troops deployed under Title 10 cannot perform law enforcement functions, arrests, seizures, searches, et cetera, unless Congress says so. They can only provide support to local state law enforcement through things like logistics, transportation, their mere presence, things like that. They can't actually perform law enforcement actions.

Now, the exception here is if the president invokes either the Insurrection Act or Marshall law. If one of those were to be invoked, then the National Guard could be used to enforce the law. But Trump did not invoke either of those in sending the National Guard, into LA. So that meant a few things. Because Trump did not have Governor Newsom's approval to send in the National Guard under Title 10, one of those three situations we talked about earlier had to be present to justify the deployment. And two, assuming deployment under Title 10 was lawful, National Guard troops were still not allowed to perform law enforcement actions. So for these reasons, the state of California ended up suing the administration, arguing that the deployment of the

National Guard, one, was unlawful under Title X because none of those three justifiable situations were present. And two, it violated the Posse Comitatis Act because National Guard troops were performing law enforcement actions by setting up blockades, controlling crowds, et cetera. The administration, on the other hand, argued that the deployment of the National Guard, one, was lawful because the protests and riots constituted a rebellion against a federal agency. And two, the deployment didn't violate the Posse Comitatis Act because the troops were merely assisting on the ground law enforcement. They weren't actually making arrests, searching people, seizing property, et cetera. Now, initially, California had requested emergency intervention by the

court. The court denied that request. A few days later, California requested and was subsequently granted a temporary restraining order. This meant that the administration couldn't send in any additional National Guard troops or Marines into LA until the court further considered the deployment and made a determination as to whether the deployment was lawful. And on Tuesday this week, the judge said that the deployment was unlawful because it violated the posse comitatis act. The judge wrote in his decision that, one, what was happening in L.A. did not qualify as a

rebellion that would justify the National Guard's deployment under Title 10, and two, that the deployment violated the Posse Comitatis Act because the National Guard was performing law enforcement actions by, you know, crowd control, setting up blockades, etc. One relevant part of the judge's ruling reads, quote, there were indeed protests in Los Angeles and some individuals engaged in violence. Yet there was no rebellion, nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the protests and enforce the law. And quote, another relevant portion of the ruling reads, quote, the evidence at trial established that defendants systematically used armed soldiers whose identity was often obscured

by protective armor and military vehicles to set up protective perimeters and traffic blockades, engage in crowd control, and otherwise demonstrate a military presence in and around Los Angeles. In short, defendants violated the Posse Cometatus Act. act. End quote. Now, the judge made clear in his decision that the Trump administration is now prohibited from deploying, ordering, instructing, training, or using the National Guard currently deployed in California and any other military troops deployed in California to execute the laws, including but not limited to engaging in arrests, apprehensions, searches, security patrols, traffic control, crowd control, riot control, evidence collection, interrogation,

or acting as informants unless, you know, Congress gives approval or it satisfies the requirements of a valid constitutional or statutory exception to the Posse Cometatis Act. Interestingly, the order also notes that the court may lack jurisdiction to block President Trump himself from performing his official duties as president. So the injunction actually only applies to Defense Secretary Hegeseth and the Department of Defense, who are the other two defendants in this case. The court's Tuesday ruling, as I said, did not apply to the 300 National Guard troops that are still deployed in L.A. per the ruling, the 300 troops that are still in L.A. can remain in L.A. They just cannot enforce the law. On Tuesday afternoon, California filed another

motion requesting the court withdraw the deployment of the remaining 300 troops, arguing that there is no legal justification for the troops' ongoing deployment. The court has not yet ruled on that motion. So what can we expect from here? Well, for one, as I just said, the troops still in L.A. can remain in L.A. They just can't perform law enforcement actions. Two, the administration cannot deploy additional troops to California for purposes of executing laws. And three, the administration may appeal this ruling, and if it does, it'll go to the appellate court. It'll be up to the appellate court to decide whether the deployment was lawful or unlawful. This next story is very much so related. So Washington, D.C. filed a lawsuit today against the administration over the

deployment of the National Guard in D.C. Now, I don't want to spend too much time on this one because we just spent a pretty good chunk of time on the California lawsuit, and they are relatively similar. But basically, D.C., like California, is arguing that, one, the deployment of the National Guard without the D.C. Mayor's consent was unlawful. And two, the deployment violated the Posse Cometatus Act because the troops were used for direct law enforcement. So these claims are very similar to California's claims. However, the situation is a little bit different. So for one, the president has more authority over the National Guard in D.C. than he does in California. And that is because D.C. is not a state. So as I said, the National Guard is typically under a state governor's control. In D.C. though, the National Guard is under the President's control. So Trump deploying the National Guard in D.C. was likely lawful as opposed to in California. D.C. is trying to argue that it was unlawful because he didn't have the mayor's consent. But the president doesn't need the mayor's consent to deploy the National Guard in D.C. What's questionable is,

whether the deployment violated the Posse Comitatis Act, were the troops acting as law enforcement? If so, that would be unlawful. And that's exactly why D.C.'s lawsuit reads, in part, quote, over 2,200 National Guard troops from seven states and the District of Columbia are currently patrolling the streets of the district, dressed in military fatigues, carrying rifles, and driving armored vehicles. The U.S. Department of Defense has directed these troops to conduct core law enforcement activities, including presence patrols and community patrols. The U.S. Department of Justice has also deputized these troops to engage in additional law enforcement activities, including searches, seizures, and arrests. And quote, so while D.C. is attempting to argue

that the president didn't have the authority to deploy National Guard troops without the mayor's consent, D.C. is also focusing on how the Guard is being used in an unlawful manner. And of course, it's no coincidence that this lawsuit is being filed just days after the ruling out of California, right? Because if a California judge is likely to find that the National Guard's role extended to law enforcement actions and therefore violated the Posse Comitatis Act, then why wouldn't a judge in D.C. find the same. So that's what we're looking at here. The claims are very similar to the claims in the California lawsuit. However, the situation is a little bit different given the president's control over the National Guard in D.C.

Let's take our first break here. When we come back, we'll talk about a new ruling regarding the Alien Enemies Act, a legal battle concerning the removal of children to Guatemala, and the decision to move the Space Command to Alabama. Welcome back. Another legal battle to discuss a federal appeals court has said that President Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Trende Aragua gang members is unlawful and blocked the use of the alien enemies. Enemies Act for deportations in the three states that the appeals court has jurisdiction over. So let's take this one piece at a time. As we well know, shortly after President Trump took office, he invoked what's called the Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected Trende Aragua gang members. Trenda Aragua is a Venezuelan gang that has made its way into the United States. Now, the Alien Enemies Act is a 1798 law. That says the president has the authority. to detain or deport the natives or citizens of an enemy nation without a hearing and based solely

on their country of birth or citizenship. But here's the thing. The president can only invoke the Alien Enemies Act in times of declared war or when a foreign nation threatens or undertakes an invasion or predatory incursion. The Alien Enemies Act has been used three times throughout history, the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II, all declared wars. So when the president invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected Trendi Aragua gang members, he basically said the U.S. has been invaded by the Trendi Aragua gang, and therefore he has the authority to deport any suspected Trenda Aragua gang member. So that's what the administration started doing, but the administration was sued.

Pretty quickly, this issue went before the Supreme Court on an emergency basis. And the Supreme Court actually paused the use of the Alien Enemies Act for deportations while the lawsuit played out in the court below and clarified that the administration was required to give deportees sufficient notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. However, keep in mind that ruling from the Supreme Court was simply an emergency injunction, if you will. It wasn't a ruling on the merits of the case. The Supreme Court still has not yet considered the merit. of this issue. However, now that we have a ruling from an appellate court, we just got it this week, it could very well go before the Supreme Court soon. So the main question here is, of course, what constitutes an invasion or predatory incursion? Because the answer will tell us whether the

Tronday Aragua gang has sufficiently threatened or undertaken one of the two to justify the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. In a divided two to one ruling, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said that Trump cannot move forward with using the Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected Trindade Aragua gang members because illegal immigration or criminal gang activity, no matter how concerning, does not rise to the level of an invasion or predatory incursion by a foreign nation. That ruling reads in part, quote, a country encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force to occupy, to disrupt, or to otherwise harm the United States. There is no finding that this mass

immigration was an armed, organized force, or forces. It is an action that would have been possible when the Alien Enemies Act was written, and the Alien Enemies Act would not have covered it. The Alien Enemies Act doesn't apply today either, end quote. Note, too, that this ruling only applies to deportations in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Why? Well, we have 13 appellate circuits throughout the United States. Each appellate court has jurisdiction over the states in its circuit. In this case, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals only has jurisdiction over Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. So its ruling can only apply to those three states. Only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all 50 states. So from here, we'll

likely see the administration take this issue to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will have to decide whether they want to hear the case. Okay, one more legal battle, and then we're done with lawsuits for today. Late last week, the Trump administration attempted to quote-unquote repatriate unaccompanied Guatemalan children, specifically children who arrived in the United States alone and are believed to not have parents living in the U.S. currently. The administration negotiated a deal with the Guatemalan government to return unaccompanied Guatemalan children over the weekend. However, at the 11th hour, a judge issued an emergency temporary restraining order blocking repatriation flights for 14 days with a follow-up hearing scheduled for September 10th.

before we dive further into this story, I want to clarify one thing that is an important aspect of the story. You may have noticed that when I said repatriate, when I first started the story, I put it in quotations. Here's why. There is a bit of a debate over the words repatriations and deportations. In immigration law, these two terms carry different legal meanings and consequences. The administration has said that these returns are voluntary repatriations. However, immigration advocates argue that they are actually deportations. Deportation is a formal legal process where the government removes a non-citizen from the United States after determining that they are unlawfully present or otherwise removable under immigration law.

Deportation requires due process, meaning notice and a notice. an opportunity to challenge one's removal. Children from certain countries are covered by a law called the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. This law gives them extra safeguards, screenings for trafficking, asylum eligibility, best interests of the child considerations, et cetera. So if an unaccompanied Guatemalan child is being deported, that child has to be processed through immigration courts before being sent back and is offered more safeguard protections than if the child is being repatriated. Okay. So now let's talk about repatriation. Repatriation is the voluntary return of a person to their country of origin. Consent is key here. The person must be

agreeing to return. Another difference with repatriation is that it's typically done through agreements with other countries or humanitarian programs. Because repatriation is voluntary, it's not considered a deportation and therefore can bypass some of the legal safeguards, like those protections for children that we just talked about. So the Trump administration argues that these are repatriations, not deportations, that immigration officers ask the children if they wanted to go home and if they said yes, that was treated as consent. Immigration advocates, though, including those that have.

now sued the administration argue that children lack the capacity to give meaningful consent and that many children aren't informed of their right to stay or don't fully understand the choice that they're given. Consequently, they argue that these should be treated as deportations, not repatriations, and the children should be given due process safeguards and enhanced federal protections. So that's the debate here over repatriation and deportations. Per the agreement that the administration made with Guatemala, unaccompanied Guatemalan children were to be flown from Texas to Guatemala. It's unclear exactly how many children were included in the agreement. Some reports are saying close to 700. We know the initial flight was carrying

74 children, but never took off. The flight was actually sitting on the tarmac as the judge's decision came through this weekend. Once that decision came through, the children were deplained and temporarily returned to shelters and foster care overseen by the Office of Refugee Resettlement. So as I mentioned earlier, Sunday's temporary restraining order against the administration blocked these repatriation flights for the next 14 days, and a follow-up hearing has been scheduled for September 10th. At that point, the court will determine whether to convert the temporary restraining order to a preliminary injunction. Here's the difference. A temporary restraining order is short term, usually 14 days, whereas a preliminary injunction would block the administration's

plan for a longer period while the court continues to consider the merits of the case. So once September 10th comes around, we will know whether there is a temporary injunction granted against the administration and therefore whether these flights can actually take off to Guatemala and return children. All right, let's talk about the Space Command. President Trump announced, this week that the U.S. Space Command headquarters, also known as Spacecom, will be relocated to Huntsville, Alabama from its current base in Colorado Springs. Trump told reporters, quote, the U.S. Space Command headquarters will move to the beautiful locale of a place called Huntsville, Alabama, forever to be known from this point forward as Rocket City. We had a lot of competition,

but Alabama's getting it. End quote. Let's add a little bit of color here. The space command was created in 1985 during the Cold War to unify space operations. After 9-11, though, the Pentagon actually folded it into the U.S. Strategic Command, and this was done in part to consolidate resources for the war on terror. What it meant, though, is that the military would no longer treat space as its own battlefield, if you will. Instead, it was just made one part of other commands. But by the late 2010s, Russia and China were testing anti-satellite weapons, electronic jamming systems, and other cyber tools aimed at U.S. satellites. U.S. military leaders started to warn that space was no longer just a support domain for things like communication, GPS, and intelligence. It was now a

potential battleground. So during Trump's first presidency in 2019, he signed an order reestablishing the U.S. Space Command. And its main goal was and still is, to find ways to defend U.S. interests in space. Keep in mind, though, that there is a difference between the Space Force and the Space Command. The Space Force is a military service branch to build and train the forces. The Space Command is a combatant command to actually use those forces in operations. So today we're talking about the U.S. Space Command. When Trump reestablished, Space Command, it was set up at Peterson Air Force Base, now called Peterson Space Force Base in Colorado Springs, which is actually where SpaceCom started in the 80s. However, when it was

set up there in 2019, it was always meant to be a temporary headquarters until a permanent location was chosen. So between 2020 and 2021, the Air Force ran a review process to determine where that permanent location would be. In total, the Air Force evaluated six. finalist states, Alabama, Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico, Texas, and Florida. Each state was evaluated based on factors like infrastructure capacity, community support, Department of Defense Cost considerations, and more. In 2021, in the final days of Trump's first term after the evaluation, the Air Force announced Huntsville, Alabama, as its preferred site. The Air Force liked the lower costs and strong space infrastructure that already existed in Huntsville. However, shortly thereafter,

the government accountability office actually released a report saying that there were significant shortfalls in the Air Force's selection process. Not that Huntsville was unqualified, but the GAO questioned the methodology behind the selection and said the selection process lacked transparency. So in 2023, President Biden overturned the Trump administration, decision and kept the spacecom headquarters in Colorado Springs. At the time, the Biden administration said that readiness and stability were both at stake if the command were to be moved. And that brings us to current day.

President Trump says spacecom will indeed now move to Huntsville, Alabama. Now, the location of the spacecom headquarters has become highly politicized due to Alabama being a red state, Colorado being a blue state. We know that politics did actually play a role, at least to some degree, in making the announcement, President Trump cited Colorado's mail-in voting system as one factor behind the relocation. He said, in part, quote, the problem I have with Colorado, one of the big problems, is that they do mail-in voting. So they have automatically crooked elections, and we can't have that. When a state is for mail-in voting, that means they want dishonest elections. So that played a big factor.

end quote. Outside of politics, though, Huntsville is home to the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, NASA's Marshall Space Light Center, various defense contractors, and aerospace companies. It has a deeply rooted history in space. In fact, in the early 1950s, a German rocket scientist and his team were brought to the U.S. under Operation Paperclip and were stationed at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, where they ended up developing the Redstone. Stone Rocket, which became the Army's first ballistic missile. The same team later developed multiple rockets, which ended up taking American astronauts to the moon during the Apollo program. And over time, Huntsville just built up a huge ecosystem around rockets and space exploration. Now, at the same time, Colorado Springs also has a long space history. It's been the center of U.S. military space operations for decades. It hosts NORAD, the Space Command upon creation, And until now, the Peterson Space Force Base, Shriver Space Force Base, the Cheyenne Mountain Complex, and these are all hubs for satellite control, missile warning, and space operations, right? Given Colorado Springs's history, some have argued that moving the headquarters could delay missions or disrupt command readiness, especially given the growing threats from China and Russia.

to some keeping space calm in Colorado Springs was seen as the safest most stable option for national security. To others, the relocation is seen as potentially an opportunity to save money because of lower costs. It'll bring billions of dollars to Alabama. And sure, it might cause a slight disruption, but it'll be worth it in the end because of the strong space centered ecosystem that exists in the area. So that's a little bit about the debate between, you know, the Huntsville location and the current Colorado Springs location and kind of why that debate has become a bit political. Let's take our second and final break here. When we come back, we'll do quick hitters, rumor has it, and critical thinking.

Welcome back. Let's run through some quick hitters. Florida's Surgeon General said this week that Florida will work to eliminate all vaccine mandates, arguing that such requirements are wrong and immoral. The new policy wouldn't ban vaccines, but ending mandates would mean that schools could no longer require vaccinations for attendance, and it could also influence whether insurance companies cover certain vaccines. Supporters say the move reduces government involvement in personal health decisions, while critics worry that it could increase the risk of disease outbreaks in schools and have ripple effects across communities. The U.S. carried out a military strike against an alleged drug boat. tied to the Trende Aragua gang, which killed 11.

The strike comes after the U.S. recently increased its naval presence near Venezuela by deploying three warships as part of an anti-drug cartel mission. President Trump announced the strike on truth social, writing in part, quote, earlier this morning on my orders, U.S. military forces conducted a kinetic strike against positively identified Trenda-Aragua narco-terrorists in the Southcom area of responsibility. The strike resulted in 11 terrorists killed in action. No U.S. forces were harmed in the strike. Please let this serve as a notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America. End quote. This week, Epstein victims gathered on Capitol Hill for a press conference in support of a procedural motion that could result in the House urging the DOJ to release the Epstein files.

President Trump on Wednesday called the push to release the files. a, quote, Democrat hoax, end quote, but victims at the press conference disagreed and told the president that this was real life, not a hoax. Notably, the procedural motion is a bipartisan one proposed by representatives Thomas Massey, who's a Republican, and Roe Kana, who's a Democrat. However, some GOP leaders are asking Republicans not to sign the petition. And speaking of Epstein documents earlier this week, a House committee released just over 33,000 pages of Epstein-related records. that it received from the DOJ. The files include court documents,

flight records, a video from Epstein's cell block from before his death, and a video taken by police during a 2005 search of Epstein's home. However, most of those documents released were already in the public domain, so really nothing new.

A judge has ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze nearly $2.2 billion in federal grants to Harvard, finding the administration used anti-Semitism as a smokescreen for a targeted assault. The judge's ruling conceded that Harvard has been plagued by anti-Semitism and could have done a better job dealing with the issue, but that quote, a review of the administrative record makes it difficult to conclude anything other than that defendants used anti-Semitism as a smoke screen for a targeted, ideologically motivated assault on this country's premier universities

and did so in a way that runs a foul of the APA, the First Amendment, and Title VI, end quote. The Trump administration can appeal that ruling just as an FYI. HHS secretary, RFK Jr., testified before the Senate Finance Committee today. Democratic senators got into heated exchanges with Kennedy over his vaccine policies and the shakeup at the CDC. Some Republicans also expressed concerns about the department's handling of vaccines. Kennedy himself reiterated that he's not anti-vaccine but wants more thorough research. And ICE says it will use a section of the Louisiana state penitentiary as a new detention center to house, quote, the worst of the worst.

And quote, state and federal officials say the portion of the prison will be called Louisiana lockup and will hold 208 criminal illegal aliens by the middle of this month. Officials say the facility will expand to hold 400 people in the coming months. All right. And that little quick hitter is actually going to take us right into the rumor has it segment, a weekly segment where I do my best to either confirm to spell and or add context to recent rumors submitted by all of you. The first one is rumor has it that the new ice detention facility in Louisiana will be called Camp 47 named after the president. This is actually false. Many outlets have referred to the new detention facility as Camp 47, but its actual name is

Camp 57. In the press conference, you can very clearly see Camp 57 painted on the building. It's unclear why some reports are using the wrong number. The name Camp 57 actually honors Louisiana's current governor, who is the state's 57th governor. Now, this next one isn't necessarily a current rumor. It was a rumor over the weekend, a pretty big one. It has since been cleared up, but a lot of you wanted to know where these rumors came from that President Trump had died or was severely ill. So let's talk about it. Here's what we know about the timeline. Roughly seven weeks ago, pictures of Trump circulated online that showed bruising on his hands and swollen ankles. In light of those pictures and questions from the public, the press secretary disclosed at a

press briefing that President Trump has actually been diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency, which is basically where the veins in your legs don't work as well as they should to move blood back up to your heart. The press secretary noted that the president does not show any signs of deep vein thrombosis, which is a severe development of CBI. However, once his diagnosis was shared with the public, some started to question the president's overall health. And last week is when the rumors kind of started to spiral out of control. Last Tuesday, Trump appeared at a live stream cabinet meeting. That was his last public appearance for about six days. On Thursday, so two days after his last public appearance, a USA Today article with Vice President Vance aired.

And in that interview, Vice President Vance talked about whether he would feel comfortable assuming office if something were to happen to the president. And he said, quote, yes, terrible tragedies happen, but I feel very confident the president of the United States is in good shape, is going to serve out the remainder of his term and do great things for the American people. And if, God forbid, there's a terrible tragedy, I can't think of better on the job training than what I've gotten over the last 200 days. end quote importantly in that same interview vance said the president was in quote incredibly good health

and quote however a couple of other things happened that same day that triggered the rumors of Trump's death so number one he the president had signed some executive orders that day but there were no pictures or videos from that signing two the press secretary had said the president was going to make a statement about Russian strikes in Ukraine but no statement was ever made So on Friday, a user on X posted, quote, Trump is dead. He died on Wednesday, end quote. This seems to be the first of many claims that ended up circulating on social media saying President Trump had died.

On Saturday, Getty images published a picture of Trump at the Trump National Golf Club in Virginia, seemingly showing that Trump was alive and well. But claims quickly circulated that those pictures were actually old images. They weren't, but that's what the claims were saying. On Sunday, Getty Images published another picture of Trump checking the phone and checking his phone in a car. And same thing. Claims started circulating that the pictures were old.

Other claims that it wasn't actually the president in the pictures, but it was a body double. Keep in mind, though, that between Wednesday and Sunday, the time when Trump was allegedly dead, he was posting to his truth social account. He posted 95 times over the course of those few days. Whether that was him alone or he had the help of his White House aides, we don't know, but it's still worth noting. So Tuesday rolls around and Trump appears live in the Oval Office where he actually debunks the rumors about his death, both verbally and simply by virtue of his presence, of course. A Fox News reporter jokingly asked him how he found out over the weekend that he was

dead and he responded in part, quote, I didn't see that, you know, I've heard it's sort of crazy, but last week I did numerous news conferences all successful. They went very well like this one is going very well. And then I didn't do any for two days. And they said there must be something wrong with him. End quote. So the president is not dead, but that is how the rumor got started. Now, since then, there has been this video circulating online that people are, so people are thinking that he has some sort of bag attached to him. If you see this video on social media, it's basically him answering questions and you can kind of see under his suit, under his jacket. There's maybe like a bag of some sort.

It doesn't look like it's his shirt. It kind of looks like it's something else. And then people are also pointing to a bulge in his shoulder, which some people are saying it's just the shoulder pad of the jacket. Other people are saying they think he actually has a device connected to him. Some people have said they think it's a colostomy bag. Others have said it's an LVAD. There's a whole bunch of theories going around, but nothing has been confirmed.

So this just to say, there's a lot going around about Trump's health generally. All right. Let's end this episode with some critical thinking. revisit the story about the unaccompanied children being sent back to Guatemala. In your opinion, which should the U.S. prioritize more? Strictly enforcing immigration laws and deterring families from sending children alone or the immediate safety and best interests of each child, even if that encourages more arrivals. And why? Now weigh the trade-offs. So what are some pros of sending these children back to their home country and what are some cons? And then on the flip side, what are some

pros of keeping them here in the U.S.? And what are some cons? And does that list of pros and cons that you come up with change or answer at all to the first question? That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. Have a fantastic weekend. I do have a new newsletter going out tomorrow morning. You can always find that link in the episode show notes. It's free. It's quick hitters in politics, pop culture, health, business, and international news. So I cover a lot of genres. But like I said, you can always find that sign up link in the show notes. Have a fantastic weekend. And I will talk to you on Monday.