UNBIASED - Texas to Pass New Congressional Map, California to Fight Back; New 'Good Moral Character' Requirements for Naturalization; $700K Spent on New Custom ICE Vehicles, and More.

Episode Date: August 21, 2025

SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: Texas Set to Enact New Congressional Map; California to Fight Back (0:46) Court Blocks Requirement to Display Ten Commandments in Texas Classrooms (5:30) USCIS New Policy Changes 'Good Moral Character' Standard for Naturalization (8:43) Federal Government Launches Investigation Into Driver of Semi-Truck that Killed Three in Florida (17:09) HHS Staff Sends Letter to Congress and Secretary Kennedy (21:58) Quick Hitters: Trump's $454M Civil Fraud Judgement Struck Down, Office of Director of National Intelligence Announces Overhaul, FTC Sues LA Fitness, Powerball Reaches Highest Jackpot of the Year (24:16) Rumor Has It: Did the Trump Administration Spend $500K+ on Custom ICE Videos for a Hype Video? (26:20) Critical Thinking Segment (29:53) 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

Fiji Airways is on sale now. Fly from Toronto via Vancouver to Fiji with round trips starting from $1554. For a destination or a stopover, Fiji is where you want to be. Fiji Airways is now a part of the One World Alliance and has joined the Advantage program. Enjoy warm island service and earn seamless global benefits. Book now at Fiji Airways.com or visit your travel agent today. Conditions apply. Welcome back to Unbiased.

favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to unbiased politics. Today is Thursday, August 21st. Let's talk about some news. There's nothing really too major going on in the news today. And what I mean by that is there's not going to be one story that takes up the majority of the episode. Instead, we'll kind of just cover a handful of random stories that are happening across the country. We're kind of taking it back to the old days today where I used to do 25-ish-minute episodes. So it'll be a good episode, nonetheless, but it's just a little slower. I think when Congress is out of session, so August, for instance, the news is just naturally a little bit slower, so that's what we're experiencing right now. But we're going to work with what we have. So let's

start, of course, with the news out of Texas. This really could have been a quick hitter because the new congressional map in Texas has not yet passed the Senate, but I know that this is what everyone is going to be talking about once it does pass the Senate. So let's talk about it now. The Texas House passed a new congressional map that favors the Republican Party, right? This is something we've been talking about for weeks on this podcast. But now that the Texas House has actually passed the map, we're talking about it again. Now, this is something called partisan gerrymandering. Okay. When a state redraws their district lines to favor one political party over another, that's partisan gerrymandering. And partisan gerrymandering is usually permissible so long as it doesn't dilute minority voting power and so long as a state doesn't prohibit it in their constitution. So some states prohibit this partisan gerrymandering, but most states don't. Texas doesn't, for instance. If partisan gerrymandering is used as a cover for racial discrimination, that's when it violates federal law.

But if it just simply favors one political party over another, it's typically upheld. So Texas Republicans are wanting to redraw their district lines in a way that allows the state to flip five U.S. House seats that are currently held by Democrats. Now, there's no guarantee that these seats actually flip come time for the 2026 midterms. It's just more than likely that they do based on how these lines are how these lines are drawn. and based on voter affiliation in these areas. Now that the Texas House passed the map, it'll go to the Texas Senate. The state Senate could pass it as early as tonight, possibly tomorrow, and from there, it'll

go to the governor's desk for signature. Once it is signed into law, that is when we could see a legal challenge. Plaintiffs are going to challenge the map, arguing that it dilutes minority voting power, and it'll be up to them to show the evidence and prove it in court. court. If they can show the requisite evidence that this new map does in fact dilute minority voting power, then the court would order the state legislature to once again redraw the map. This is also when we are going to see other states start to jump into the ring. California for one is reportedly already kind of getting ready right now to pass its proposed constitutional amendment to hurry the

process of redrawing a new map to counteract what Texas is doing. Now, California's rules are a little bit different than Texas's rules because these rules vary by state. So as we talked about last week in California, I think it was last week. I don't think it was Monday. I think it was last week. Maybe I'm going crazy. I don't know. But as we've talked about in California, they cannot, the legislature cannot redraw its congressional map before 2030 because they have something called an independent commission. In California, an independent commission is in charge of drawing the map. So some states have this independent commission to take politics out of it. Other states just use their legislature to draw the maps. So in California, they have this independent commission

and that is enshrined in their state constitution. What that means is for the legislature to be able to redraw the map ahead of the 2026 midterms, California would have to amend its state constitution. So the state assembly and state Senate now have to consider a variety of bills, right? So first they have to pass a bill that even allows for a special election in November because a special election would give them the opportunity to pass this proposal. constitutional amendment. And from there, they would have to actually pass this proposed constitutional amendment by a two-thirds vote in both the state assembly and the state Senate. If they can pass the

proposed constitutional amendment, that's when it would go to California voters in November in that special election. So there's still a ways to go here. But for right now, we're keeping our eyes on whether the Texas Senate passes the new congressional map, which they likely will. and whether California is able to get a special election set up and pass its constitutional amendment, therefore allowing the California legislature to redraw its map ahead of the 2026 midterm and counteract what Texas is doing. Speaking of Texas, a federal court has temporarily blocked a new Texas state law that would have required public schools to display the Ten Commandments in,

every classroom. The law, which was signed by the governor earlier this year, said that by September 1st, each classroom must hang a poster at least 16 by 20 inches of the Ten Commandments or a framed copy of a specific Protestant version of the Ten Commandments. Naturally, several families of different faiths and backgrounds who are represented by groups like the ACLU of Texas and Americans United for separation of church and state challenged the law, arguing that it violates the First Amendment by intruding on the rights of parents to direct their children's religious upbringing and by forcing religious mandates into public schools. In asking the court to overturn the law, the parents also asked for a preliminary injunction, which is standard

procedure in lawsuits like this. Basically, with a preliminary injunction in place, the state is unable to enforce the state law while the court is considering the merits of the case. So yesterday, the judge went ahead and granted that preliminary injunction. Whenever a court is considering whether to grant a preliminary injunction, it'll look at a few factors, mainly whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of their claim once the merits are considered. Here, the judge found that requiring displays of the Ten Commandments could, amount to unconstitutional religious coercion by pressuring children into observing, venerating, or suppressing their own beliefs in favor of the state's preferred scripture.

The judge noted that even if the commandments were not explicitly taught in the classrooms, students would inevitably ask questions and therefore pull teachers into religious discussions. The judge also cited concerns that the law favored one religious tradition over others and undermine both inclusivity in schools and the authority of parents to guide their children's faith development. So as we've said, this ruling means that Texas school districts cannot enforce the law while this case proceeds. However, this ruling does not end the matter. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has vowed to appeal the injunction. He argues that the Ten Commandments are a cornerstone of America's moral and legal heritage. Now, even if Texas,

is Attorney General appeals and wins and gets this preliminary injunction overturned, the lower court still has to rule on the merits of the case. And then that ruling would likely get appealed, and that's when the case would land in the federal appeals court. So there's still a lot that has to happen here. Importantly, courts in two other states, those states being Louisiana and Arkansas, have blocked similar laws. So this issue is expected to advance through the appeals process one way or another and could potentially ultimately reach the Supreme Court. So we'll keep an eye on this issue and we will see what happens. Let's move on now to some naturalization criteria changes under the Trump administration. U.S. citizen and immigration services recently released a policy

memo titled restoring a rigorous, holistic, and comprehensive good moral character evaluation standard for aliens applying for naturalization. Now, this memo essentially tells U.S. CIS officers to move away from simply checking boxes to determine if someone has committed a disqualifying crime and instead directs officers to look at both positive and negative factors or positive and negative behaviors before deciding whether someone truly shows good moral character. The memo reads in part, quote, among other eligibility factors, aliens applying for naturalization must demonstrate that he or she has been and continues to be an individual of good moral character. Evaluating good moral character involves more than a cursory mechanical review

focused on the absence of wrongdoing. It entails a holistic assessment of an alien's behavior, adherence to societal norms, and positive contributions that affirmatively demonstrate good moral character. This memo charters an improved direction for making GMC determinations and signals of return to a comprehensive totality of the circumstances approach to GMC under the Immigration and Nationality Act, end quote. So the idea of, I want to run through a little bit of history here. So we have something to compare this memo to. The idea of good moral character is something that's been part of U.S. immigration and naturalization law for more than 100 years. Way back when Congress first passed naturalization laws in the late 1800s, very early 1900s,

there wasn't a detailed definition of GMC, good moral character. Rather, applicants for citizenship just needed to, they, what they did is they would bring witnesses to court, usually U.S. citizens, who would testify that that person was of good moral character. It was sort of a subjective standard and it was typically based on community reputation as well as a judge's impression of the individual. In 1906, the Naturalization Act standardized naturalization and formally added the requirement that applicants proved, for a certain number of years before applying, usually five years. But GMC still really wasn't clearly defined. It was still decided by courts on a case-by-case basis. GMC was first defined in the law in 1952. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 listed specific behaviors that automatically meant someone did not have good moral character. And these included being a

habitual drunkard, practicing polygamy, involvement in prostitution or illegal gambling, giving false testimony to obtain immigration benefits, and committing certain crimes like murder or an aggravated felony. Importantly, in 1952, when that law was enacted, it also included a catch-all clause saying that good moral character could be denied for other reasons not specifically listed. And this gave officers in court's discretion to look, beyond the checklist, if you will, for purposes of denials. Over time, the process really started to function more like a checklist. And we're talking from the 60s through the 90s. So if you hadn't committed one of the listed disqualifying acts during the required period, usually five

years, you were generally considered to meet the GMC standard. If you did commit one of these disqualifying acts, you were automatically disqualified. Officers did sometimes use the catch-all clause to deny GMC for other reasons, but it was less common. Courts were big on the fact that GMC shouldn't be based on perfection, but instead should be judged within the standards of the average citizen in the community. So then we get to the 90s, and Congress added permanent bars like aggravated felonies. Anyone with an aggravated felony conviction could never establish GMC. Drug crimes, immigration fraud, other immigration-related violations, like false claims to citizenship, these also became common grounds for GMC denials.

And again, still, through this time period, it functioned like a checklist. If you committed one of the permanent bars, you were denied. If you had never committed one of the permanent bars, you were generally presumed to meet good moral character. The focus was more so on avoiding certain crimes, not on showing positive contributions. During Trump's first administration, USCIS shifted away from that checklist. sort of procedure that we've been talking about by directing officers to weigh more than just the statutory bars. But there still was not a focus on positive contributions. Instead, the 2019

USCIS memo expanded the kinds of negative behavior that could block someone from citizenship. So these are things like multiple DUIs or unpaid child support. Then when Biden took office in 2021, that approach was rolled back in favor of that checklist like standard we've been talking about. And now we're here. Now we're today. This new USCIS memo. So again, it directs officers to take a holistic view similar to the 2019 memo, but it goes further than the 2019 guidance by directing officers to now consider both negative and positive contributions to society in determining whether an applicant truly shows good moral character. So just to be clear, certain crimes still automatically disqualify someone from naturalization,

murder, aggravated felonies, et cetera. Anything that Congress codified into law, Congress would have to change. The USCIS could not change it with a new memo. Where this new memo kicks in is for the gray area cases, where there isn't a permanent or conditional statutory bar, but the applicant does have negative conduct that might raise concerns, multiple DUIs, repeated traffic offenses, not paying child support, harassment, disorderly conduct, et cetera. In those cases, officers have to now consider both negatives and positives together.

So someone with a past DUI, but who can show rehabilitation, stable work, strong community involvement, those individuals might still succeed in obtaining naturalization. Positive contributions can include community involvement, family caregiving, receiving an education, lawful and stable employment, career achievements, paying taxes, paying child support. So there's a whole list of these positive behaviors and contributions that can help someone obtain naturalization, even if they have negative behaviors on their quote unquote record. supporters of this change, including USCIS officials, argue that U.S. citizenship should be seen as the gold standard, reserved for the world's best of the best. They believe the policy strengthens the naturalization process by ensuring that new citizens are not only free from disqualifying behavior, but also actively demonstrate positive contributions to American society.

From this perspective, the policy restores integrity to the immigration system and ensures that citizenship goes to people who, embrace U.S. culture history and responsibilities. Opponents on the other hand warn that the change creates new problems and is too subjective. Immigration attorneys and some scholars point out that it introduces uncertainty and subjectivity since it's unclear how much volunteer work or what type of community involvement is enough to meet the standard. Some also worry that the broad language of the memo gives officers wide discretion, which can open the door. to implicit bias or unfair scrutiny of applicants' personal lives. So there's a list of pros and cons here.

And the reason that I'm pointing them out is because we're actually going to return to the story once we get to the critical thinking segment. So just keep this somewhat fresh in your mind. Let's take a break here. When we come back, we'll talk about a new federal investigation into a semi-truck crash, a letter from HHS staff to Secretary Kennedy and more. Welcome back. Earlier this week, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy announced an investigation

into a semi-truck crash in Florida that killed three people. This investigation comes after it was determined that the driver of the semi came to the U.S. illegally in 2018 and later obtained a commercial driver's license in Washington State and in California. Now, to give you some context, I don't know if you've seen the dash cam video footage that's out there, but basically the driver of the truck was driving on Florida's Turnpike in St. Lucie, which in that area of the state is a two lane highway or four lane highway two lane highway I'll explain more so there's two lanes going north and two lanes going south it's not very wide

every so often on the turnpike there's a little opening between the northbound and southbound lanes which drivers are not allowed to use drivers have to actually wait until they get to the exits and do a U-turn that way those openings are for emergency vehicles well this driver decides he's going to do a U-turn in the middle of the turnpike and cut through one of those openings. When he does that, his truck is now, of course, taking up both lanes of the northbound lanes and will soon take up both lanes of the southbound lanes as well. But as he goes to make his turn into the southbound lanes, a minivan traveling at full speed, full speed, there was no brakes applied, just crashes right into the underbody of the

semi and is immediately completely crushed. All three people inside the minivan died on impact. According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the investigation is focusing on the driver and the company that hired the driver. The driver has since been charged with three counts of vehicular homicide and is currently in ICE custody. The FM CSA said that during an interview with the driver, he failed the English language proficiency assessment. answering just two of the 12 verbal questions correctly and identifying only one of four highway traffic signs accurately. As I briefly mentioned earlier, the driver reportedly came to the U.S. illegally in 2018. He traveled from India but entered the U.S. through the southern border.

Shortly after he crossed the border, he was detained by ICE, but he was later released on a $5,000 immigration bond after telling ICE officials that he was scared to return to his home country of India. He was initially denied work authorization in 2020 under the Trump administration, but was later granted work authorization in 2021 under the Biden administration. He was then eventually given a full-term commercial driver's license in Washington state in 2023. Later in 2024, he was given a limited term commercial driver's license in California. Now, the thing is, to get a commercial driver's license, you have to have lawful presence in the United States. that includes U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residence, but it also includes certain non-citizens with valid work authorization. For example, people on work visas, DACA recipients, people with other

DHS issued employment authorization, some sort of proper documentation. So perhaps that is how this driver was able to obtain a commercial license, but that's one of the big reasons why this investigation was launched is to figure out exactly how he was able to obtain the license. mainly did he have valid work authorization? It seems he did, but that's the focus of the investigation at this point. Officials have so far said that preliminary investigations indicate that both Washington State and New Mexico may have violated FMCSA rules. Specifically, the department said Washington State issued the driver a regular full-term commercial

driver's license, which asylum seekers or individuals without legal status are not eligible to receive unless they have valid work authorization from the DHS. And then the department also said that New Mexico state police fail to conduct an English language proficiency test when they pulled the driver over for speeding on a separate occasion. However, it's important to note that state police generally don't administer the ELP test at roadside stops. That's part of the commercial license issuance process, not necessarily traffic enforcement. What New Mexico might have failed to do is properly flag or report the driver for FM CSA compliance review, you know, after. the stop, but again, conducting an ELP test at a traffic stop isn't typical. And of course, as we talked about, the FM CSA is also investigating the limited term non-domiciled license

that California issued to determine whether that was issued properly. So that's what this investigation is centering on. Moving on, yesterday more than 750 employees from the Department of Health and Human Services sent a signed letter to Congress and HHS Secretary Kennedy, urging the secretary to stop spreading misinformation. The letter opens by saying that the August 8th shooting at the CDC's Atlanta headquarters was not random and was driven by politicized rhetoric. The letter reads, quote, the attack came amid growing mistrust in public institutions, driven by politicized rhetoric that has turned public health professionals from trusted experts into

targets of villainization and now violence. And quote, the letter goes on to claim that Secretary Kennedy has indicted, HHS employees by spreading misinformation stating, quote, when a federal health agency is under attack, America's health is under attack. When the federal workforce is not safe, America is not safe. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is complicit in dismantling America's public health infrastructure and endangering the nation's health by repeatedly spreading inaccurate health information. End quote. The signatories say Kennedy sowed public mistrust by accusing the CDC of corruption and terminating critical CDC workers in agency-wide staffing

cuts that impacted the CDC's emergencies preparedness and response efforts. They also say he falsely claimed that MRNA vaccines fail to provide effective protection during the pandemic and cited the cancellation of $500 million in contracts for MRNA vaccine development. They also argue that Kennedy undermined the public health response to the measles outbreak by falsely claiming the measles vaccine has not been safely tested and the protection, quote, wanes very quickly. They cite to his disbandment of the advisory committee on immunization practices and his appointment of ideologically driven members and his alleged misuse of data to falsely claim

childhood vaccines are the cause of autism. The signatories conclude the letter by requesting that by September 2nd, 2025, Secretary Kennedy do three things. One, stop spreading inaccurate health information. Two, affirm the CDC's scientific integrity. And three, guarantee the safety of the HHS workforce. Now for a few quick hitters. A New York State Appeals Court has tossed the $454 million civil fraud penalty against President Trump, ruling it excessive and unconstitutional under the eighth amendment. Notably, the court upheld the finding that Trump and his organization committed business fraud by inflating asset values. New York Attorney General Letitia James said she plans to appeal the ruling. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced a major

restructuring of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which will reduce its workforce by more than 40 percent and cut the annual budget by $700 million while aiming for $1.3 billion in savings across the intelligence community. The overhaul dissolves or consolidates agencies like the Foreign Malign Influence Center, Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center, and the National Intelligence University under other entities. The Federal Trade Commission is suing Fitness International, which operates L.A. Fitness and related gym chains, accusing the company of imposing unnecessarily difficult cancellation procedures resulting in hundreds of millions in unwanted reoccurring charges and tens of thousands in consumer complaints.

The difficult cancellation procedures include requiring members to mail printed forms or visit a specific manager in person. The FTC is seeking a court order to halt these practices and asking for restitution to compensate affected members. Fitness International disputes the allegations, noting it introduced an online cancellation option over 18 months ago. And on a somewhat positive and non-political note, the powerball jackpot is now the highest it's been all year at an estimated $700 million.

The next drawing is scheduled for Saturday, and the winner will have the option of receiving the jackpot as annual payments over 29 years, or a one-time cash payout of $3.3 million before taxes. Sometimes whenever the jackpot gets really high, I go out and buy a few tickets just for fun, so feel free to join me on that. Okay, let's do rumor has it. my weekly segment where I addressed recent rumors submitted by all of you and either confirm to spill and or add context to them. Today we have one. Rumor has it that the Trump administration spent over $500,000 in taxpayer dollars to buy new ice trucks styled to look like Trump's private

plane for a social media hype video. Let's add some context. So the DHS posted a video to X, which features a Ford Raptor pickup truck and a GMC Yukon SUV driving around. Washington, D.C. These vehicles are navy blue with red and white racing stripes, a gold logo, President Donald J. Trump printed in gold on the back window, and the words defend the homeland in gold on the side of the vehicles. The caption of the post reads, iced out. Now, some people have noted that the custom wrapping on the cards look similar to Trump's private Boeing 757, also known as Trump Force One. However, the designs are a little bit different. So Trump Force One is is navy blue on the top half. With Trump's name written in gold, it has a red racing stripe

across the middle of the plane with thin navy stripes running across as well. And then it's white on the bottom half. These new ice cars are all navy with one thin red racing stripe, one thin white racing stripe, and then one thin gold racing stripe all running across the middle of the car. So the design is a little bit different from Trump Force one, but the color scheme is the same, that being red, white, navy, and gold. Now, we don't know exactly how many cars the administration purchased and wrapped for ICE purposes. We know that there are at least six, but we don't know if there are more than six. The six we know of include two GMC Yukons, at least two Raptors, and two Mustang GTs. According to federal spending documents, the administration purchased one

Yukon for $86,300, another Yukon for $101,600. The Ford Raptors, plural, for $196,220, and the Mustangs for $121,400. We know the Yukons and the Raptors were purchased for quote unquote recruitment purposes, and the Mustangs were purchased for quote unquote agency purposes. And again, that's according to those purchase orders. Then for the rap jobs, the documents show a $53,600 payment to capital wrappers, a $105,350 payment to PC Fix Inc, a $54,5,527 payment to absolute perfection, and then a $75,000 payment to advanced graphics. So with the wrap jobs and the cost of the cards, that brings the grand total to, least $794,000. I know a lot of you are wondering where that money is coming from. Well, as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, ICE was allocated about $76 billion. 30 billion of that was specifically

for operations, which includes a variety of things. But for purposes of this discussion, it includes hiring and recruitment. So that explains why these car purchases were made specifically for recruitment purposes and agency purposes on the purchase orders. But yes, more than 700,000 taxpayer dollars were used to buy these custom cars for ICE. And now it's time to finish with some critical thinking. Let's revisit the new U.S. Customs and Immigration Services Memo. I'm going to keep it simple today and just encourage you to think of pros and cons of this new memo versus the traditional checklist style approach that we talked about. So in a way, while this new memo directs officers to consider both positive and negative behaviors

and allows people to rehabilitate themselves, it also makes it tougher for applicants to attain naturalization than it has been traditionally, right? Because before it was just, hey, if you committed these acts, you're done, but if you haven't, you're generally accepted as having good moral character. Now it's if you've committed these certain acts, you're still done. But if you haven't and you've committed some other negative acts, you need to prove rehabilitation and some sort of positive contribution to society to redeem yourself. So what I want you to do is try to think of two pros and two cons of this new procedure. If you can think of more great, but try to think of at least two. That's what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. As always,

have a fantastic weekend and I will talk to you on Monday. Thank you.