UNBIASED - Supreme Court Weighs Conversion Therapy Ban, What to Know About the Ambler Road Project, Israel and Hamas Sign Off on Phase One of Deal, the National Guard Fight in Oregon, and More.

Episode Date: October 9, 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: Bipartisan Bill Seeks to Extend ACA Premium Tax Credits (0:12) Judge Says Trump Can't Deploy Oregon or California National Guard to Portland; Here's What to Know (4:33) What About Plenary Power? What Does It Mean? Why Did Stephen Miller Say the President Has It? (12:30) Supreme Court Weighs Conversion Therapy Ban (19:09) Suspect Arrested in Connected with Palisades Fire (30:51) Trump Orders Approval of Ambler Road Project; Here's What You Need to Know (37:25) Trump Says Israel and Hamas Sign Off on Phase One of Deal; This Is What It Means (45:27) Rumor Has It: Is Trump Introducing a New Coin Featuring His Face? Has the Administration Already Completed 48% of Project 2025? (47:33) Critical Thinking Segment (54:19) 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

When you're with Amex Platinum, you get access to exclusive dining experiences and an annual travel credit. So the best tapas in town might be in a new town altogether. That's the powerful backing of Amex. Terms and conditions apply. Learn more at Amex.ca. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics.

Today is Thursday, October 9th. Let's talk about some news. First and foremost, in Monday's episode, we covered exactly why the federal government is currently shut down. And more specifically, we talked about the Democratic funding bill proposal and the truth behind the claim that Democrats want free health care for. illegal immigrants. If you haven't yet listened to Monday's episode, I highly recommend doing so. I know quite a few people had issues downloading that episode when it was first

released. The issue has since been fixed. So go ahead and try again. If you had that issue, you shouldn't have any issues now. It's an episode that you really don't want to miss either because I think a lot of people are wondering what exactly is going on and what's at the center of the controversy. Now, I also want to add something to that conversation. So if you remember, there were three Democratic proposals, the extension of the ACA premium tax credits, the repeal of cuts to emergency room reimbursements, and the repeal of limitations placed on certain groups of lawfully present non-citizens for purposes of enrolling in Medicaid, Medicare chip, and ACA subsidies. What I want to add here is this. Republicans are more adamantly against the latter two.

proposals. That is what the fight is really about, those last two proposals from the Democrats. There's actually a bipartisan bill that was introduced in the House last month to extend the ACA tax credits. And we will likely see, which I'll touch on more when we get to the end of the story, but we will likely see an extension to these tax credits before the end of the year, whether or not it's included in this continuing resolution. So currently this by partisan bill has 13 Republican co-sponsors and 12 Democratic sponsors. That bill, if it is passed as it's currently written, will extend the ACA premium tax credits through the end of next year. So through the end of 2026. Currently, under the law, certain taxpayers making a certain income are eligible to

claim a premium tax credit, which applies toward the cost of obtaining. health insurance through health insurance exchanges. Okay. To be eligible for this tax credit, the household income must meet or exceed 100% of the federal poverty level and cannot exceed 400% of the federal poverty level. So that's the maximum income limit. However, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 eliminated that maximum income limit and lowered the share of income that households are expected to pay for the benchmark plan. So essentially freezing those percentages so they don't go up with inflation. Together, those changes not only increased subsidies, but also let some higher

income households qualify. And these changes were to remain in effect from 2021 through the end of 2025. So that means that at the end of this year, the income cap is set to take effect again and contribution percentages will start to account for inflation again. So what this new bipartisan bill would do is extend those temporary rules for one more year. If passed, like I said, if it's passed as the way it's written, the 400% income cap would stay lifted and the lower inflation-free contribution percentages would continue. In practice, what this would mean is that if you are eligible for these premium tax credits, you would continue contributing less of your income for the benchmark plan in 2026. And then some households above 400% of the federal

poverty level could still qualify for subsidies if premiums are high. So hopefully that makes sense. This is all just to say that it's very possible that even if the ACA premium tax credit expansion or extension doesn't get included in the continuing resolution that the Democrats are currently proposing, it is still likely that Congress passes an extension in a separate bill before the end of the year. In fact, I would be surprised if that didn't happen. So I just wanted to clarify that. Next story. Over the weekend, a judge blocked the Trump administration from sending California National Guard troops to Oregon after first blocking the administration from deploying Oregon State National Guard troops. I covered this one as a quick hitter in Monday's episode,

but a lot of you wanted more context. So let's do it. Last month, President Trump announced that he approved the deployment of National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, writing in a truth social post, quote, at the request of Secretary of Homeland Security, Christine Ome, I am directing Secretary of War Pete Heggseth to provide all necessary troops to protect war ravaged Portland and any of our ICE facilities under siege from attack by Antifa and other domestic terrorists. I'm also authorizing full force if necessary. End quote. So that post from President Trump came months after ICE protests and riots began in Portland.

These protests and riots have been going on since June. Basically, they started in early June at an ICE field office. They spiked a bit in mid-June when law enforcement reported fires being set near buildings and multiple arrests. then they kind of slowed down in late June, July, and August, and early September as well. And then they picked back up last month when the White House announced the deployment of the National Guard. So Trump's post was on September 27th. From September 28th through today, the intensity of the protest and riots has been ranked as medium to high. Okay.

So, and this is reporting by various outlets. So basically ever since Trump made this announcement, that's when the protests and riots started to kind of increase again. Most recently, on October 4th, police deployed tear gas, flashbangs, and made multiple arrests. So Trump posted this to Truth Social, like I said on September 27. The following day, defense secretary Pete Heggseth federalized Oregon's National Guard, and he announced that 200 troops would be sent to Portland for 60 days. That same day, the state of Oregon and city of Portland sued the administration, and they basically accused the administration of violating Title X of the U.S. Code and the Posse Comitatis Act. Now, this is something that also happened in California.

Okay. So amid all of the ICE protest and riots in California, the administration sent National Guard troops in to assist law enforcement under Title X of the U.S. Code. California sued the administration and a judge temporarily blocked the administration from sending in any additional troops. because the court found that it was likely that the administration violated Title 10 and the Posse Comitatis Act by sending in the troops to L.A. And I talked about this in depth in my September 4th episode if you want to go check it out. But just to quickly recap, Title 10 of the U.S. Code is a federal law that allows the president to deploy the National Guard. Okay. Typically, National Guard troops are under the control of a state's governor, not the president. But under time, Title 10, the president has the authority to federalize the National Guard without a governor's

approval. This is the catch, though. Title 10 can only be used in three situations. Number one, if 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. One of those three situations has to be present for the president to lawfully invoke his authority under Title X and federalize the National Guard. However, even if Title X is lawfully invoked, even if one of those three situations is present and Title X is lawfully invoked, the actions of troops under Title X are limited by what is

called the Posse Cometatus 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've been federalized, they are limited by the Posse Cometatis Act, which means that National Guard troops deployed under Title 10 cannot perform law enforcement functions like arrests, searches, seizures, et cetera, unless Congress says so. They can only provide support to local law or local and state law enforcement. Logistical support, transportation, you know, their mere presence, things like that. The exception here is if the president invokes the Insurrection Act or martial law.

If one of those were to be invoked, then the National Guard could be used to enforce the law. But President Trump has not invoked either of those things. So basically what happened in California is the judge ruled that, number one, none of those three situations in Title X were present, and therefore the federalization of troops under Title X was not justified. And two, the actions of the National Guard troops went beyond mere support and therefore violated the Posse Comitatis Act. Oregon, when it initially filed its lawsuit, the day Hegeseth Federal,

the Oregon National Guard troops, argued that deploying the National Guard to Portland is illegal because, number one, the troops would be used as a civilian police force, which is impermissible under the Posse Comitatis Act. And two, because neither an insurrection nor a rebellion is currently taking place in Portland, similar to L.A., and nor is it the case that the United States government is unable to enforce federal laws with regular military forces. So in other words, they're arguing none of the three situations are present that would justify federalization under Title 10. Like I said, very similar arguments to California. Now, the judge in the Oregon case told the administration that they could not. She issued a temporary restraining order, is what it is.

And basically said the administration doesn't have the authority to deploy Oregon State National Guard troops under Title 10 and therefore couldn't do it. So the following day, President Trump goes ahead and deploys 300 California National Guard troops to Portland, again invoking Title 10. The chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said during a press briefing that this action was taken to, quote, support ICE and other federal personnel performing official duties, including the enforcement of federal law and to protect federal property, end quote. However, Trump's attempt to send in troops from California resulted in Oregon filing another emergency motion for another temporary restraining order. And in an emergency hearing later that day, the judge ruled that the deployment

of California's National Guard falls under the same temporary restraining order as previously issued and explicitly prohibited the deployment of California's, along with any other state's National Guard troops to Portland. The Trump administration has since appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. So there are two possible outcomes here. If the Ninth Circuit rules in favor of Oregon and upholds the lower court's restraining order, the administration would be temporarily prohibited for 14 days from deploying or using any National Guard troops in Portland. Should the Ninth Circuit rule in favor of the administration, the administration can proceed with deploying either the Oregon National Guard or the California National Guard,

depending on how the court rules. However, note that even if the Ninth Circuit allows the administration to deploy troops, the National Guard still cannot be used as domestic law enforcement. that would still be barred by the Posse Comitatis Act. They could only play a supporting role for state and local law enforcement. So hopefully that clears up what is going on in Oregon. Now, the next story is a related story. Following the judge's recent rulings, barring the administration from deploying any troops to Portland,

Stephen Miller, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, was asked during a CNN interview, whether the administration would abide by the ruling. And his response to that question has led to lots of questions about plenary authority or plenary power. So I want to set the scene here first. The host of the CNN broadcast asked Miller whether the administration plans to abide by the court rulings. And Miller responded saying, you know, first he said the administration has already filed an appeal. And he noted that the administration has already won a similar case in the Ninth Circuit, presumably implying that he felt the administration or feels the administration will win this appeal to. But then Miller says, quote, under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, the president has plenary authority.

And all of a sudden, he just stops talking. Now, the host can be heard asking Miller a few times if he can hear him. Miller isn't responding. He's just kind of staring into the camera. And then the host says that it seems CNN was having a technical issue. They would try to fix the issue and then get back to him after a quick break. CNN takes a quick break. When they come back, Miller is live again.

the host asks Miller the same question, whether the administration plans to abide by the recent court orders. And this time, Miller's response was a little different. Instead of citing plenary authority, Miller says the administration will in fact abide by the court order insofar as it affects the covered parties, but that there are also many other options the president has to deploy federal resources and assets under the U.S. military to Portland. He says, quote, But I was making the point, presumably referring to his earlier interview, under federal law, title 10 of the U.S. Code, the president has the authority anytime he believes federal resources are insufficient to federalize the National Guard to carry out a mission necessary for public safety, end quote. So you'll notice he did not say plenary authority the second time around. He cited a specific authority instead.

this has led a lot of people to wonder what is plenary authority? Why did Miller freeze up as if he knew he said something totally wrong? Now, I don't know why he froze up. I don't know if it's because he caught himself saying the wrong thing or if it's because CNN was experiencing a technical issue, like they said. What I can tell you is what plenary authority is. And I can also say that the president does not have plenary authority when it comes to the National Guard. And it'll all make sense because we just talked about when the president does have, you know, authority. to federalize the National Guard, and then we'll also talk about what plenary authority. Plenary authority is. So it'll all make sense. Basically, so the actual definition of plenary is absolute or complete. Okay. But when we're talking about plenary authority or plenary power in the government, we're talking about a legal term for wide ranging power. Now, it's not 100% absolute, but it is wide ranging in the sense that it typically comes with very minimal limitations and very minimal judicial oversight. And the reason that that plenary power is not 100% absolute is because the framers specifically

set up the Constitution in a way that no branch of government has complete 100% unchecked authority. They came from a king. They did not want a king here. And they made sure the three branches of government were properly separated via checks and balances and that no one branch had 100% unchecked authority. So an example of plenary power would be the president's power to grant presidential pardons for federal crimes. Okay. Partons are typically not subject to judicial oversight. It's a power that really can't be overridden by Congress or the courts, except in a few situations. For instance, we don't know whether

a president can pardon himself. That is something that would have to be decided by the courts if that became an issue. However, because of the plenary nature of the power, a very high-level of deference would likely be given to the president. Similarly, there are a few limitations on presidential powers. They can't undo impeachment. They can only be used for federal offenses. They can't be used in ways that themselves violate the Constitution. So while presidents have the plenary power to grant presidential pardons, the power isn't completely unchecked in absolute, right? Similarly, Congress is said to have plenary power over states or over trade between states. States can't pass laws that interfere with Congress's regulation of interstate commerce,

yet at the same time, the Supreme Court has imposed limits on Congress. Congress also has plenary power to make and enforce immigration laws, yet Congress is still limited by constitutional rights and can still be checked by the courts. So plenary power is very much so wide ranging, but it's not 100% complete and absolute. Hopefully those examples illustrate that. Now, that brings us to what Miller initially said, but then later corrected himself. The reality is, like I said, the president doesn't have plenary authority to deploy state National Guard troops. The president only has the power to do this under those very limited circumstances per Title 10 of the U.S. Code. And Title 10 tells us exactly what those circumstances are. We went over those circumstances

in the last story, invasion, rebellion, or insurrection, or when the regular military forces cannot adequately execute federal law. And that is why Miller corrected himself. in the second interview to say that under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, the president has the authority anytime he believes federal resources are insufficient to federalize the National Guard. He was referring to a very specific instance where the president can federalize National Guard troops under Title 10. This is different from plenary power. Now, outside of those three specific situations laid out in Title 10, the president can only deploy the National Guard or federalize the National Guard, I should say, when a state governor requests it. The

exception here is in Washington, D.C. By law, the D.C. National Guard reports to the president, and therefore the president has much more authority to deploy D.C. troops. But the president does not have plenary authority over state national guard because he can only federalize them in very narrow circumstances. Let's take our first break here. When we come back, we'll talk about the conversion therapy case at the Supreme Court, the Palisades fire arrest, and more. Welcome back. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case called Childs v. Salazar. It's a case in which a licensed therapist is challenging Colorado's ban on conversion therapy. So conversion therapy is, of course, the practice of attempting to

change one's sexual orientation or gender identity through psychoanalysis, behavior modification, spiritual counseling, etc. Back in 2019, Colorado passed a lot. law, which bans conversion therapy for minors. Specifically, the law bans mental health professionals from providing clients under the age of 18 with conversion therapy. Notably, the law does exempt anyone engaged in the practice of religious ministry. So if a parent sends their child or their teenager to a therapist for purposes of receiving conversion therapy, or if a teenager sends themselves, though that's much less likely, a mental health professional cannot legally provide that. therapy. The law specifically defines conversion therapy as, quote, any practice or treatment by a

licensed physician specializing in the practice of psychiatry that attempts or purports to change in individuals' sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings towards individuals of the same sex, end quote. So in 2022, nearly three years after the law was enacted, Kaylee Childs, a licensed counselor in Colorado and practicing Christian, filed a lawsuit against Colorado's ban on conversion therapy and asked the court to block enforcement of the law against her. She alleged that the ban on conversion therapy for minors violates her rights under the free

speech clause of the First Amendment and that she should be allowed. to provide it. The district court rejected Charles' request for a preliminary injunction. Now, if she would have gotten the preliminary injunction, it basically would have temporarily blocked the state from enforcing the ban against her while the lawsuit continued. But the court denied her request. So technically, the state could have enforced the ban against her. They didn't, but they could have. The reason the court rejected Charles's request is because it found that she was not likely to succeed on the merits of her First Amendment claim when the case did ultimately to oral arguments down the road. The court instead reasoned that the counseling restriction

is constitutionally, or I should say is likely because they didn't end appearing oral arguments, but the court found that the counseling restriction is likely constitutionally permissible because it regulates conduct by banning speech made in a professional context rather than banning speech broadly. So Childs ends up appealing. this ruling to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and on appeal, the 10th Circuit upheld the lower court's ruling. And the appellate court reasoned that the conversion therapy ban regulates conduct and not speech. Specifically, the treatment that Childs provides as a mental health professional. That's the conduct that the court was referring to. And the court said, yeah, maybe the

ban has an incidental effect on speech, but it's really regulating conduct. Because of this, the court determined that the law should be evaluated under the least stringent, constitutional standard known as rational basis review, which the courts had the ban satisfies. So the law was upheld. From there, the therapist took the case to the Supreme Court, and here we are. Now, I want you to remember that when a court looks at a law that limits what people can say or do, it has to, the court has to figure out how serious that limit is and why the government made the rule. It's important to note that not all limits. limits on speech are treated the same. Some limits on speech are minor. Other limits affect major

rights. So they're not all treated the same way. So in order to sort out how serious a limit is and why the government made the rule, judges use three levels of testing. And these are called levels of scrutiny. Okay. So you can think of these like difficulty levels in a game that the government is playing. There's easy, medium, and hard. Strict scrutiny is the hardest level for the government. It usually applies when a law targets the content of speech, meaning what someone says or believes. Or it can apply when a law affects major First Amendment freedoms like religion or political expression. And the reason that this is that this is the hardest level for the government, the hardest test, is because our government system, our courts want to make sure that it is not easy for the government to infringe on our major constitutional. rights. So when strict scrutiny is applied, the government has to prove that the law serves a very

important purpose, is narrowly tailored to achieve that purpose, and does not limit people's rights more than necessary. And this is very hard for the government to do. And that's why usually restrictive laws have a very difficult time passing strict scrutiny. If you are a plaintiff in this case, you want the court to use strict scrutiny because it's the most difficult for the government. to prove. Intermediate scrutiny is the middle level. The law has to serve an important goal and it has to be fair. So it just, it can't be aimed at silencing certain viewpoints. Intermediate scrutiny is usually used for laws that affect how speech is expressed, like certain time, place, or manner rules, rather than what's actually being said. So it's not the actual content that's being restricted.

And then you have rational basis review. This is the easiest level for the government. The government just has to show that the law makes sense and it has a reasonable purpose. So laws about the drinking age or traffic rules, those usually fit in here. These laws almost always pass constitutional muster because rational basis review is really easy to get past. Another really important thing to note is this. Not every law connected to speech actually regulates speech. Some laws regulate conduct instead. In other words, they regulate what people do, not necessarily what they say. If a law mainly targets behavior, like a doctor's treatment methods, hint, hint, and only incidentally affects speech, courts will usually treat it as a regulation of conduct,

not a restriction on free speech. And laws that regulate conduct usually get rational basis review. So it's easier for the government to win. In this case, the Supreme Court first will have to decide what level of scrutiny to apply to the conversion therapy ban and then evaluate whether it's constitutional based on that test. The big question is, does this law simply regulate conduct or does it regulate speech? Now, I just mentioned how medical treatments tend to fall under conduct, but we have a bit of a different situation here because this particular treatment heavily involves speech, right? Because the counselor is speaking, the conversion therapy is done by way of speech. So it does make the situation a bit unique. And this will be illustrated

when I go over the arguments on both sides. Child's claims that this conversion ban therapy violates her right to free speech because it imposes a gag order on counselors. She emphasizes that her counseling conversations involve only speech, not conduct, and that the counseling restriction directly burdens that speech. She also argues that because the law discriminates based on content, what's actually being said and viewpoint, this law should be reviewed under strict scrutiny. And therefore, because strict scrutiny is so hard to pass, this law should be deemed unconstitutional because it does not serve a very important interest and it is not narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Colorado, on the other hand, argues that the law

simply regulates treatments that mental health professionals can provide because conversion therapy has been found to be unsafe and ineffective. The state also argues that the First Amendment does not restrict state's power to regulate professional health care treatments that violate the standard of care, and that states can't lose that power to regulate health care professionals just because those professionals are using words and not conduct or actions. Colorado also asserts that its law does not discriminate based on viewpoint as child's contends, and even if it did, it would still meet the heightened level of scrutiny because Colorado has a legitimate, important, and compelling interest in making sure minors receive safe and effective

mental health care and because the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that particular interest. So during oral arguments on Tuesday, the justices, first of all, they questioned whether Childs even has the legal right to bring the lawsuit in the first place, considering Colorado has not yet sought to enforce the ban against her and says that it won't do so. So this is called standing. There's certain, you know, things that have to be met for you to even have a legal right to bring a lawsuit. And the fact that there's really no threat of enforcement here, the justices question whether she even has the ability to bring this lawsuit. However, in getting to the meat of this case, four of the court's conservative justices seemed to reject the idea that the state has the ability to regulate talk therapy in the same way that it can regulate.

regulate medical treatments. Justice Jackson, however, one of the three liberal justices on the bench took a different approach. She noted the long historical tradition of regulating medical treatments, and she suggested that it would be very odd to think that two different medical professionals can provide different kinds of treatment for the same condition, one with talk therapy and one with medication, but the two kinds of treatment would receive different protection under the Constitution, even though they're doing the same thing. So again, the big question comes down to, does this conversion therapy ban regulate conduct or does it regulate speech? Just to put everyone on notice here looking forward, there are a few different things that

could happen. Number one, the justices could just dismiss this case for lack of standing and the case would be over. The ban would stand and yeah, the case would be done until someone else who actually had the legal standing to sue brought another challenge. The second thing that could happen is the justices could decide what level of scrutiny to apply to the case and then send it back down for the lower court to evaluate. In that situation, the case very well could end up back in the Supreme Court's hands next year. Or number three, the justices could decide what level of scrutiny to apply and do the analysis themselves, in which case the issue would be entirely resolved by the Supreme Court and the case would be over. So those are the three possible avenues from

here. We should, I would expect, I mean, maybe we could have a decision in a couple of months, but this could also be one that the courts wait a bit longer to issue a decision on. So it's hard to say, but we will see with time as with anything. Moving on, yesterday the U.S. Attorney for Southern California announced that a suspect has been arrested in connection with the devastating palisades fire that broke out at the beginning of the year and became one of the most destructive wildfires in Los Angeles history. 29-year-old Jonathan Rindernecht is so far facing a federal charge of destruction of property by means of fire.

Per the release from the U.S. Attorney's Office, Jonathan Rindernecht, aka Jonathan Rinder and John Rinder of Melbourne, Florida, was arrested Tuesday, and he made his initial appearance Wednesday in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. So he was in California. he moved to Florida. That's where he was arrested and that is now where he's facing his federal charge. It's important to note here that the suspect is actually accused of starting a different fire called the Lockman fire. And that fire eventually turned into the Palisades fire about a week

later. So first we'll go through what the press release says and then I'll add a few more details to the story. According to an affidavit filed with the criminal complaint, quote, law enforcement determined that the Palisades fire was a holdover fire. In other words, it started from what was left from an earlier fire, in this case the Lockman Fire, which began just after midnight on New Year's Day. Although firefighters quickly suppressed the Lockman Fire, unbeknownst to anyone, the fire continued to smolder and burn underground within the root structure of dense vegetation. On January 7th, heavy winds caused the underground fire to surface and spread above ground in what became known as the Palisades Fire, which caused widespread damage in the Pacific

Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles. law enforcement determined using witness statements, video surveillance, cell phone data, and analysis of fire dynamics and patterns at the scene, among other things, that Rindernecht maliciously set the Lockman fire just after midnight on January 1st on land owned by the mountains recreation and conservation authority. A week later, the same fire, then known as the Palisades fire, burned federal property. Continuing, the press release says, quote, on the evening of December 31st, 2021, Rinderneck was working as an Uber driver. Two passengers that he drove on separate trips between 10.15 p.m. and 11. 15 p.m. that night later told law enforcement they remember that Rinderneck appeared agitated and angry. After dropping off a passenger in Pacific Palisades, Rindernecht, who once lived in that neighborhood, drove towards Skull Rock Trailhead, parked his car,

attempted to contact a former friend, and walked up the trail. He then used his iPhone to take videos at a nearby hilltop area and listened to a rap song, to which he had listened repeatedly in previous days, whose music video included things being lit on fire. At 1212 a.m. on January 1st, 2025, environmental sensing platforms indicated the Lockman fire had begun. During the next five minutes, Rinderneck called 911 several times, but didn't get through because his phone was out of cell phone range. When he finally connected with 911, he was at the bottom of the hiking trail and reported the fire. By that point, a nearby resident had already reported fire to authorities. Rinderneck then fled in his car, passing fire engines driving in the opposite

direction. He then turned around and followed the fire engines to the scene, driving at a high rate of speed. Rinderneck walked up the same trail from earlier that night to watch the fire and the firefighters. At approximately 102 a.m., he used his iPhone to take more videos of the scene. During an interview with law enforcement on January 24, 2025, Rinderneck lied about where he was when he first saw the Lachlan fire. He claimed he was near the bottom of a hiking trail. when he first saw the fire and called 911. But geolocation data from his iPhone carrier showed he was standing in a clearing 30 feet from the fire

as it rapidly grew. End quote. At the press conference announcing Rinderneck's arrest, the U.S. attorney noted that the allegations against him are supported by digital evidence, including his chat GPT prompt of a dystopian painting, showing in part a burning forest and a crowd fleeing from it. That search was apparently made a few months

before the start of the fire. Authorities said that around 1147 p.m., the suspect took two videos on top of the hill, and there were no fires visible. Around 15 minutes later, around 12.12 a.m., that's when sensors indicated a fire in the area. During the next five minutes is when the suspect made the calls to 911, but couldn't get through. Now, just as a quick reminder, because there were a few fires burning around the same time, the Palisades fire was the fire that burned through the Pacific Palisades neighborhood in Southern California, 12 people were killed, more than 6,000 homes and businesses were destroyed.

The actual federal crime that the suspect is charged with is Title 18, Section 844 of the U.S. Code. And what it says is this, I'm going to paraphrase and only include the relevant portions because laws can be confusing and lengthy. It says, whoever maliciously damages or destroys by means of fire, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by the United States or any department or agency thereof or any institution or organization receiving federal financial assistance shall not or shall be imprisoned for not less than five years and not more than 20 years fined under this title or both. So his current federal charge is not for arson generally. It is specifically for the damage that was done to the land owned by the

Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, which is an organization that receives federal funding. He may soon face additional federal charges, perhaps state charges as well, but this is currently his only charge. And speaking of one specific charge, once this does go to trial, if it goes to trial, prosecutors have to focus on proving that, one, this fire was started by a human being, not some other ignition source like a firework. Two, that the human that started the fire was the suspect. And three, that Rinderneck started the fire maliciously. In the law, to have malicious intent is to have willful intent. So it's a deliberate act done with a wrongful purpose. That is what the prosecution will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt to get a guilty

conviction on this particular charge. Let's take our second and final break here. When we come back, we'll talk about the Ambler Road Project in Alaska. We'll do a quick update on the deal between Israel and Hamas. And then we'll finish with rumor has it and critical thinking. Welcome back. A viral social media video has sparked a lot of questions about a project known as the Ambler Road project. The video says, quote, while America was distracted with takeover talk and federal troops, today Trump signed away Alaskan Wilderness with a presidential act creating a two lane 211 mile gravel road that cuts through the gates of the Arctic.

National Park, 11 rivers, and thousands of streams to mine the Alaskan wilderness. This is known as the Ambler Road Project. In addition to wilderness and environmental concerns, 40 Alaskan tribes worry that this road will put their way of life at risk because this area is an important habitat for salmon and caribou. Biden had rejected the Ambler Road project because of the threats to wildlife and tribes. And in an unusual step, the U.S. government has also taken a 10% shareholder stake in Trilogy Meadows, a Canadian company leading the development with an option of buying an additional 7.5% of the company, end quote. So what I want to do here is I'll fact check the claims made in this video. Then I'll give you a little bit of a backstory here. And then we'll discuss the

arguments for and against the project. Starting with the first sentence of the post, which says Trump signed away the Alaskan wilderness with a presidential act. What Trump did is he issued a memo ordering the approval of the Ambler Road project. So now that he's ordered that approval, the federal agencies involved with the project will have to issue the authorizations necessary for the project to start. However, I do want to note that

while Trump's memo removes certainly a major hurdle for the project, developers will still need to overcome lawsuits from environmental and tribal groups before they can get started on this. And they have to get approval from two Alaska Native of regional corporations who own land that sits in the road's planned path. So this isn't something that can start immediately. The developers still have a ways to go here.

The video also says that the project involves a two-lane 211 mile gravel road that cuts through the gates of the Arctic National Park, 11 rivers, and thousands of streams to mine the Alaskan wilderness. This is true. The road, if it's completed, will span 211 miles. It'll cut through 11 rivers and thousands of streams. and roughly 26 of those 211 miles will cut through gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve before the road ultimately reaches the site of the future mine.

The video also says that in addition to wilderness and environmental concerns, 40 Alaskan tribes worry that this road will put their way of life at risk because it's an important habitat area for salmon and caribou. This is also true. I should, though, clarify and say it's unclear if the number of tribes that has voiced opposition is exactly 40, but opposition from many tribal groups is very well documented in various impact statements. The video says, quote, Biden had rejected the Ambler Road project because of the threats to wildlife and tribes. This is also true. In April of last year, the Bureau of Land

Management determined that the road would have many negative impacts and that the best route for the project was no route at all. And then the final claim set forth in the video is that in an unusual step, the U.S. government has also taken a 10% shareholder stake in Trilogy Metals, a Canadian company leading the development with an option of buying an additional 7.5% of the company. This is true as well. Per the White House's own fact sheet on the project, the U.S. government has partnered with Trilogy Metals, investing $35.6 million to support mining exploration in Alaska's Ambler Mining District. That fact sheet says that the investment makes the U.S. government, a 10% shareholder in Trilogy Metals, and includes options to purchase an additional

seven, an additional seven and a half percent of the company. Now, I know within the last few weeks, a lot of people have wondered about the U.S. government acquiring stakes in companies actually addressed it in the September 25th episode, but just to quickly cover it here, the United States government has historically bought stakes in private companies, but it's almost always been done to bail out companies. What we are seeing now under the Trump administration is, a policy shift where the equity is being used proactively rather than reactively. And it's being done to secure supply chains in things like chips, rare earths, and lithium, all things with national security and geopolitical significance. So as examples, the administration recently bought a

10% stake in Intel. The month before that, the Department of Defense took a 15% equity stake in a mining company called MP Materials. More recently, the administration said it's seeking an stake in another mining company called lithium Americas. So the Trump administration is justifying these purchases as national security moves. Rather than continuing to rely on China, South Korea and Taiwan for things like rare earths and chips, the U.S. is investing in their own. So that's the deal with these equity stakes that you're seeing. But what I want to do now is I want to give you a little more background on this project. So according to the proposal document, the project would allow for exploration and development of mineral deposits in the Ambler mining district.

Construction is estimated to take four to six years, with an upfront cost of $350 million and an additional $8 to $10 million annually for upkeep costs. The roads land is divided into 61% Alaskan state lands, 15% Native Corporation lands, and 24% federal lands, and it's expected to have an operational life of up to 50 years. White House fact sheet claims that it's projected to give, or I guess Alaska is projected to receive more than $1.1 billion in revenues from things like mining license taxes, corporate income taxes, production royalties, et cetera. And the fact sheet also says that construction of the road will support just under 3,000 jobs. This project was first formally proposed in 2015, but its environmental impact statement, which is a document that's required by federal

law that basically describes all of the potential environmental consequences that implementing the project could result in wasn't finalized until March of 2020. Throughout 2020 and 2021, or the first few days of 2021, the project picked up steam and the project was approved in January 2021. But then in 2022, under the Biden administration, the Bureau of Land Management rescinded the land rights, claiming that the project was approved without sufficient consideration for the health of wildlife and the ways of life for indigenous tribes. Later in April 2024, a new environmental impact statement was released and the project was re-evaluated, this time with more emphasis on the health of wildlife and the preferences of the regional

indigenous peoples. But the Bureau of Land Management halted the project indefinitely, finding that the best route for the project was no route at all. Fast forward to Trump's current administration on his second day in office. He signed an executive. executive order, which rescinded the no action decision made by the Bureau of Land Management in 2024. And then as we know, most recently on Monday, Trump ordered the approval of the project, which triggers federal agencies to issue the authorizations necessary for the project to start. But remember, there are still plenty of hurdles in place before the project can actually get underway. Critics of this project argue that it'll have significant negative impacts on the

environment and wildlife, especially on the caribou and fish habitats, and that the problem project will significantly disrupt the regional indigenous communities. Supporters of the project, however, see it as an opportunity to bring lucrative jobs into Alaska, and they argue that the minerals present in this mining district, which include cobalt, zinc, and others would not only help the United States substantially in its transition to clean energy and electric vehicles, but also support our own self-reliance when it comes to rare earths rather than having to rely on China. Okay, just a quick update to Monday's episode as it pertains to Israel and Hamas. President Trump did announce an agreement between Israel and Hamas last night. Now, President Trump says that the two have signed off on phase one of the deal, which I will tell you what phase one includes in a minute. But I do want to note that as of right now or as of the time I wrote this episode out, which was around 1 p.m. Eastern time on Thursday, Israel's security cabinet still had to vote on phase one. And then that vote will be followed by a full cabinet vote. And

a decision is expected later today could be made by the time the episode is released, but this is to say if and when the full cabinet votes to accept the deal, that is when a ceasefire will take effect immediately and phase one will begin. When that ceasefire starts, Israeli troops will pull back to agreed upon lines. We don't exactly know what those lines look like as of now, but supposedly they've been agreed to. And the clock will also start ticking on a 24-hour window during which petitions objecting to this. deal can be submitted to the Israeli High Court. And this window is something that's mandated by Israeli law. Once that 24-hour objection window closes, a 72-hour countdown begins for Hamas to release

all remaining hostages dead and alive. Under the plan, all living hostages, which is believed to be about, or believed to be at least, not about, but at least 20, are set to be released together without any sort of ceremony from Hamas. And the remains of the deceased hostages are all also to be returned during that same 72-hour period. President Trump said he expects the hostages to be returned Monday or Tuesday depending on when Israel finalizes their vote. At the same time, once Hamas begins releasing its hostages, Israel has to release 250 Palestinian prisoners who are currently serving life sentences in Israel, as well as 1,700 Palestinians from Gaza who were detained by Israel after October 7, 2023. Now, like I said, this is just going to be a quick update. I'm

sure more will develop over the weekend, so I'm guessing I'll have yet another update for you on Monday, but that is what we know as of now. And now it's time for my rumor has it segment, which is my weekly segment where I either confirm to spell and or add context to recent rumors submitted by all of you guys. I'm going on like 50 minutes of this episode, and I think my, I'm just like losing the ability to talk at this point. First rumor. Rumor has it that President Trump is planning to introduce a new coin featuring his face. This is true, but let's add some context. So last week, draft images of a $1 commemorative coin featuring Trump's face began circulating online. And in response to those images, U.S. Treasurer Brandon Beach wrote on X,

quote, no fake news here. These first drafts honoring America's 250th birthday and the president of the United States are real. Looking forward to sharing more soon once the obstructionist shutdown of the United States government is over. A treasury spokesperson added that while a final one dollar coin design has not yet been selected to commemorate the United States 250th anniversary, the first draft reflects well the enduring spirit of our country and democracy, even in the face of immense obstacles. Now, from what we can tell from the images of the proposed design, the head's side of the coin shows a side profile of Trump with the traditional inscription of liberty arching at the top and then the phrase, in God we trust at the bottom. It is very, very, very similar to our half

dollar. The tail side of the coin, though, is different than what we typically see on the backs of our coins. Usually on the backs of the coins, it's a building or a crest of some sort. Trump's proposed coin shows himself with his fist raised in the air and the American flag flying behind him. Above him on the back of the coin are the words fight, fight, fight, with the traditional inscription United States of America and E. Pluribus Unum along the bottom of the coin. As far as Leake go. This is permissible for the most part. So the circulating collectible coin redesign act of 2020, it was signed into law in January of 2021. And it authorizes the United States Mint to produce new designs on select circulating coins from 2022 through 2030. The law lays out a multi-year plan to

celebrate American history, culture, and diversity through our circulating currency. So as an example, From 2022 through 2025, the mint has been issuing the American women quarters, which feature different designs each year honoring the accomplishments of notable American women. In 26, though, the mint, per this law, is to recognize the 250th anniversary of our nation's founding by redesigning select circulating coins for 2026. during 20s 26, all circulating coins from pennies to dollars can be redesigned, and the quarters will feature up to five designs celebrating the country's founding in its history with at least one design, specifically recognizing women's contributions during the founding era. Notably, there is a provision in this law that says no head and shoulders portrait or bust of any person living or dead, and no portrait of a living person may be included.

in the design on the reverse of any coin. And this is why I said the Trump dollar coin is permissible for the most part. It seems as if, including a picture of him on the back of the coin, would violate this law. An interesting little note here, too, is we do have a pretty long-standing tradition here in the United States of not depicting living people on coins, but Calvin Coolidge is the only U.S. president so far to ever be depicted on a U.S. coin while still alive. that happened during America's 150th anniversary celebration when Congress authorized the minting of a commemorative coin and the designer settled on a joint portrait of George Washington and Calvin

Coolidge. So just to close the loop here, the rumor that President Trump is planning on introducing a coin featuring his face is true. Second and final one, rumor has it that the Trump administration has completed 48% of Project 2025. Per the Project 2025 tracker, which is is an independently run tracking site. This is true. Now, I'm going to be honest with you. I cannot verify myself whether this is true because that would require me to not only review every proposal laid out in the 900 page mandate for leadership, but also compare all of that to every action the administration has taken and I just don't have that kind of time. This podcast is my full-time job, not reviewing the mandate for leadership. So I just, this is to say, I have not verified this

myself. What I will say is this very well could be true, and here's why. The mandate for leadership is the roughly 900 page handbook for conservative leadership written by the Heritage Foundation, right? The Heritage Foundation has been authoring the mandate for leadership for the last 40 years, okay, since 1981. The first edition was published right before President Reagan took office. It was a detailed policy blueprint for his incoming administration, just like the Project 2025 mandate for leadership is a detailed policy blueprint for Trump's administration. Since then, since 1981, the Heritage Foundation has updated and reissued this mandate for leadership at the start of most Republican administrations or election cycles, including,

but not limited to the 1984. Well, first we have the 1981 mandate, then the 1984 mandate, the 1988 mandate for George HW, the 2001 mandate for George W, the 2016 mandate for Trump, and then the most recent 2025 mandate. The reason I say this is to say that each president that has received this mandate, whether they intended to or not, has completed parts of it. And that's because the mandate for leadership lays out conservative policies that conservative presidents happen to agree with. Some presidents, though, have completed more than others. So President Reagan, for instance, implemented roughly 60% of the mandate for leadership's recommendations in his

first year in office. Now, when HW came in, he, implemented a more moderate leadership and for the most part ignored the 1988 mandate. His estimated adoption rate is said to be under 20% throughout his entire administration. Same with George W. He implemented around 25 to 30% throughout his presidency. During President Trump's first term, though, he went back to Reagan levels as far as implementation. According to the Heritage Foundation, Trump implemented 64% of the policy recommendations in his first year in office during that first term. So I say this to say that if Trump has implemented 48% of the mandate for leadership during his first nine months in office, I wouldn't be surprised at all.

It seems like a pretty realistic estimate. Okay, so we're going to finish this week with some critical thinking and we're going to revisit the conversion therapy ban. If you are on the side of the therapist and you believe this type of therapy is more about speech, than conduct, meaning the state should not be able to regulate it, I want to flip the script. So if a state law instead required therapists to provide affirming counseling to support a client's gender identity or sexual orientation and a therapist objected on religious or moral grounds, would you still feel that the state shouldn't be able to regulate it because it's more about speech than conduct. Why or why not? Now, let's look at it from the other side. If you believe the state

can regulate conversion therapy because it's about conduct, not speech, we're going to flip that too. If a state passed a law banning affirming counseling that supports a client's gender identity or sexual orientation, claiming it was a harmful or unsafe practice, would you still feel the state has a right to regulate it as professional conduct? Or would that suddenly feel like a restriction on speech? And of course, why? That's what I have for you today. I know we didn't do quick hitters. As always, if you want quick hitters, subscribe to the newsletter. The link is always in the episode description. That newsletter will be going out tomorrow morning at 6 a.m. Eastern. It's full of quick hitters in politics, pop culture, business, health, and international news. So definitely check that out.

I hope you have a fantastic weekend. And I will talk to you on Monday. You know, I'm going to be able to