UNBIASED - Trump Activates National Guard and Puts D.C. Police Dept. Under Federal Control, What We Know About the CDC Shooting, Are Pesticide Companies Really Getting Immunity? And More.

Episode Date: August 11, 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: What We Know About the CDC Shooting and Shooter (0:07) Appeals Court Overturns Ruling Contempt Finding Against Trump Administration Officials (3:33) Texas AG Files Lawsuit Seeking Removal of Democratic Lawmakers (10:24) Trump and Putin to Meet This Week in Alaska (12:07) Trump Activates National Guard in D.C. and Puts Metropolitan Police Dept. Under Federal Control to Combat Crime (13:07) CA Assembly Bill 495 Is Sparking Conversation. Here's What to Know (19:59) Is Congress Really Granting Pesticide Companies Immunity? Here's What to Know (22:57) Quick Hitters: Supreme Court Asked to Overturn Same-Sex Marriage, Judge Denies Request to Release Grand Jury Transcripts, Explosion at U.S. Steel Plant, Trump Puts Off Tariffs on China Again (26:48) Critical Thinking Segment (28:35) 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 Monday, August 11th. Let's talk about some news. We are going to start with some news from the end of last week and then work our way to more current news. So we'll start with the CDC shooting that took place on Friday. And we'll talk about what we know about that.

So we know that on Friday afternoon, a gunman had tried to get inside the CDC headquarters, but was stopped by guards. He then drove across the street to a CVS location, which is located directly across the street from the main entrance to the CDC. Just before 5 p.m. local time, that's when the shooter began firing at the CDC. From that CVS, he fired more than 40 shots towards the exterior of the CDC building.

And the bullets did penetrate at least four office buildings through the windows, but there were no injuries or deaths of CDC. employees. The shooter was wearing what appeared to be a surgical mask, and according to an officer who spoke on the condition of anonymity, the shooter was armed with five guns, at least two hand guns, a rifle, a shotgun, and then he had two backpacks filled with ammunition. As the gunmen continued to fire at the CDC building, DeKalb County Police Officer David Rose arrived on scene. at that point, the shooter began firing directly at Officer Rose, and unfortunately, he died from those wounds. He's a 33-year-old married father of two. He has a third child on the way,

and next month would have marked his one-year anniversary as a county police officer. As the gunman hid out on the second floor of the CBS store, he was eventually struck by gunfire and killed. However, law enforcement do not know. know yet whether the fatal gunshot wound was self-inflicted or from law enforcement. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation has since identified the suspect as Patrick Joseph White, a 30-year-old male who lived with his parents in Kennesaw, Georgia, about 25 miles northwest of the Atlanta CDC headquarters. White's father actually contacted police once news of the shooting broke and told them that

his son was the possible shooter. White's father also told law enforcement that his father was emotional over the death of his dog and had become fixated on the COVID vaccine, which White allegedly believed made him depressed and suicidal. One law enforcement official who also spoke on the condition of anonymity said that White's father had reported his son as suicidal to law enforcement even before the shooting occurred on Friday. One of White's neighbors said that White had told her several times that he was skeptical of the COVID vaccine. And another woman who lives on the same street as White's family said that White would bring up his mistrust of vaccines and unrelated conversations, but seemed like a good guy.

She said that White was very unsettled and he very deeply believed that vaccines hurt him and were hurting other people, but that White wasn't violent and that she never thought he would take it out on the CDC. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation has since that the crime scene is, quote, unquote, complex and that the investigation will take, quote, an extended period of time. Moving on, also on Friday, a U.S. Appellate Court ruled two to one that U.S. District Judge Bosberg cannot proceed with criminal contempt charges against Trump administration officials. The divided ruling revokes Bozberg's earlier finding that probable cause exists. to hold Trump officials in contempt for violating court orders.

The appeals court also removed a separate Boseberg determination that required the Trump administration to give migrants flown to El Salvador an opportunity to challenge their removal. So let's back up just a little bit. We'll talk about how we got here. Earlier this year, President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected Trende Aragua gang members, and he was subsequently sued. Judge Bozberg was the presiding judge over the case. And Bozberg initially issued this temporary ruling, which said that the administration

was to immediately halt any deportations of any suspected Trende Arago gang members. Bozberg knew that the Trump administration was planning on deporting more suspected gang members that day. So we said that no additional planes were allowed to leave. And any additional plane or any planes that had already left had to be turned around. Well, the Trump administration did not turn the planes around because it argued that those planes were already in international waters and therefore Bosberg did not have the jurisdiction to order their return. Not only that, though, the administration also sent a third plane

of deportees after Judge Bosberg had already issued his ruling in court. Now, the thing about court orders is that you have to abide by them, right? If you don't, you risk being found in contempt of court. Contemptive court usually means you're stuck with a monetary fine, but in the worst case scenario, you could go to jail. So once the Trump administration didn't turn the planes around and proceeded to send that third plane, Judge Bosberg weighed a contempt ruling against administration officials. And what he ultimately found was that there was probable cause to hold the administration in contempt. He didn't actually charge the administration with contempt. He just found that there was a probable cause to do so. Now, another thing to note here

is that in early April, the Supreme Court actually partially threw out Bozberg's ruling requiring the administration to halt deportations. The Supreme Court said that Bozberg had followed the wrong legal process and coming to his decision. So once Bozberg found probable cause to hold administration officials in contempt for violating his order, the administration then took that finding to the appellate court and argued, look, the Supreme Court threw out Bozberg's original ruling and because this probable cause finding stemmed from that original ruling, the probable cause finding must also be struck down. So that's the decision we got on Friday. The appellate panel ruled two to one, siding with the administration to overturn Boasberg's

finding of probable cause. The two judges who ruled in the majority found that Bozberg lacked judicial authority to issue contempt charges. So one of the judges wrote, quote, the district courts order raises troubling questions about judicial control over core executive functions like the conduct of foreign policy and the prosecution of criminal offenses. And it implicates an unsettled issue whether the judiciary may impose criminal contempt for violating injunctions entered without jurisdiction. End quote. The other judge in the majority noted that contempt charges used by judges as punishment cannot be a, quote, backdoor. to obtain compliance with a court order.

She described Bozberg's contempt order as especially egregious against senior government officials and said that it constituted a, quote, intrusion on the president's foreign affairs authority. And quote, the dissenting judge, on the other hand, argued that the Supreme Court's finding that Bozberg followed the wrong legal process does not affect the federal contempt charges against Trump officials and added, quote, are you? system of courts cannot long endure if disappointed litigants defy court orders with impunity rather than legally challenge them. This is why willful disobedience of a court order is punishable

as criminal contempt." End quote. Notably, that two to one decision from the appellate court was split along partisan lines. What do I mean by that? Well, it's true that judges are meant to be impartial, but federal judges are appointed by presidents. So presidents tend to appoint judges who share their ideologies and beliefs and will rule on cases accordingly, right? So in this case, the two judges that overturned the probable cause finding were Trump appointees from his first administration, whereas the one dissenting judge was an Obama appointee. Now, the second Boesberg ruling that the appellate court overturned was the ruling that said the administration must give suspected gang members a chance to challenge their designation as alien enemies under

the Alien Enemies Act. So Bozberg wrote in his original ruling that absent that ability to challenge, the government could just snatch anyone off the street, turn him over to a foreign country, and then effectively foreclose any corrective course of action. So the DOJ subsubstableness appealed that ruling. And on Friday, the ruling was overturned by the appellate court. The appellate court reasoned that because the migrants who were sent to El Salvador have since been released, the changed circumstances have overtaken the rationale for Boseberg's order. And just to be clear there, the appellate court is referring to the fact that around 250 Venezuelans who had been deported to El Salvador were released last month to Venezuela in exchange

for 10 U.S. nationals. So they're no longer in El Salvador in custody, and therefore, the issue is moot. So what does the appellate ruling mean for this case going forward? Well, mainly it means that Trump administration officials will not be held in contempt for violating Boseberg's order and sending those deportation planes. But the second thing that's worth noting here is that the courts have yet to decide the lawfulness of President Trump's Alien Enemy Act order. In other words, is yet to be determined whether deporting suspected Trendy Aragua gang members under the Alien Enemies Act is permissible. That's something that's been being litigated since the executive order was signed, and we still do not have a final answer on that. Next story is a quick update

to last week's episode. I just kind of want to keep us, I mean, we've tracked everything that's been going on in Texas, so I just want to keep us up to date on the latest. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxson has filed a lawsuit seeking to declare 13 Democratic State House seats vacant, arguing that the lawmakers abandoned their duties by fleeing the state to block a Republican redistricting plan. So this lawsuit actually follows a similar lawsuit from Governor Greg Abbott, though Abbott's lawsuit only targeted one Democrat. That Democrat called Abbott's move an unprecedented request that violates the Texas Constitution. Paxton's lawsuit claims, that the Democratic lawmakers confirmed their intent to abandon office through public statements

refusing to return. Paxton called them cowards engaging in an out-of-state rebellion that sabotaged the constitutional process. The lawmakers, on the other hand, argue that only the Texas House by a two-thirds vote can expel members and therefore has asked the court to reject both Governor Abbott and Attorney General Paxton's petitions. Attorney General Paxon has also launched investigations into two political action committees, alleging they may have operated an illegal bribery scheme to pay Democrats to break quorum. And Paxon has also sued former U.S. representative Beto O'Rourke over fundraising efforts to support the lawmakers' travel and lodging while they are out of state. O'Rourke has rejected that bribery claim and has countersued Paxton.

So that's the latest there. And then in some other quick news, President Trump will meet with President Putin in Alaska this Friday. It'll mark the first time since 2007 that Putin has been invited to the U.S. outside of U.N. related functions and the first meeting between Trump and Putin since 2018. Trump says the talks will aim to negotiate an end to the war between Russia and Ukraine and could include Ukraine's President Zelensky, though it's unclear if he will. attend. Trump hinted that the deal might involve territorial swaps, which would echo a proposal that Putin recently showed to Trump's special envoy Steve Whitkoff. However, Zelensky has

firmly rejected giving up any Ukrainian land and has said that such decisions without Ukraine's consent would undermine peace. He stressed that Ukrainians, quote, will not gift their land to the occupiers, end quote, and called any externally imposed settlement, unquote unworkable. I don't know about you guys, but my entire social feed is filled with different health trends and it's probably because I do like to stay on top of my health and I'm always looking for ways that I can improve my health, especially as someone who has a couple of autoimmune disorders. But I'm not going to lie, when there's so many different health trends thrown my way, I just get overwhelmed and then I end up not doing any of them. Sometimes I just

kind of have to remind myself to go back to basics and just go see a doctor in real life if I have a problem. And that's why I love Zoc Doc, because Zoc Doc makes it easy. You guys know I love Zoc Doc. I've talked about it before, but basically it's a free app and website where you can search and compare high quality in network doctors and click to instantly book an appointment. With Zoc Doc, you can book appointments with more than 100,000 doctors across every specialty. You can filter for doctors who take your insurance, who are located nearby, who are a good fit for any medical need you might have. And then once you find the right doctor, you can see their actual appointment openings, choose a time slot that works for you, and click to instantly book a visit. It's truly a game

changer. Stop putting off those doctor's appointments and go to Zocdoc.com slash unbiased to find and instantly book a top rated doctor today. That's Zocdoc.com slash unbiased. Get to Toronto's main venue. like Budweiser Stage and the new Roger Stadium with Go Transit. Thanks to Go Transit's special online e-ticket fairs, a $10 one-day weekend pass offers unlimited travel on any weekend day or holiday anywhere along the Go Network. And the weekday group passes offer the same weekday travel flexibility across the network,

starting at $30 for two people and up to $60 for a group of five. Buy your online go pass ahead of the show at go-transit.com slash tickets. Let's now talk about the federalization of Washington, D.C. So President Trump held a press conference earlier today in which he formally declared a public safety emergency in Washington, D.C., and announced plans that he says will make D.C. safer. Those plans include the federal government overseeing the D.C. Metropolitan Police Force and the activation of the National Guard. So let's talk about it. First and foremost, this federalization comes on the heels of a recent attack. on a 19-year-old administration employee who was beaten in a carjacking attempt by 10 suspects at

three in the morning. Since that attack, two 15-year-olds have been arrested, and the search for the other suspects remains ongoing. Trump responded to that attack on Truth Social by posting a bloody picture of the victim sitting shirtless on the street and wrote, quote, crime in Washington, D.C. is totally out of control. Local youths and gang members, some only 14, 15, and 16, years old are randomly attacking, mugging, maiming, and shooting innocent citizens. At the same time knowing they will be almost immediately released. They are not afraid of law enforcement because they know nothing ever happens to them, but it's going to happen now. If D.C. doesn't get its act together and quickly, we will have no choice but to take federal control of the city.

End quote. So that attack happened on Saturday, August 3rd, Trump's response was shortly thereafter. on Wednesday, August 6th, Trump said he would consider having the administration take control of the D.C. police department and might deploy the National Guard. On Thursday, August 7th, the White House press secretaries said that President Trump had directed increased presence of federal law enforcement to protect innocent citizens and said that starting that night, there would be no safe harbor for violent criminals in D.C. That increased presence began at 12.1 a.m. on Friday is led by the U.S. Park Police in what the White House referred to collectively as the D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force, which Trump established via an executive order earlier

this year in March. Then, of course, today we know that Trump announced the federalization of D.C. So what this will entail is federal oversight over the D.C. Metropolitan Police Force and the activation of the National Guard. Is this something he can do? It seems so. Here is what we know. Most of the authority and oversight of Washington, D.C. actually belongs to Congress because D.C. doesn't have statehood, right? Now, Congress did cede some of its control and authority when it passed the Home Rule Act in 1973. The Home Rule Act is what established a local government in D.C., including the D.C. mayor and the city council, but still the law reserved ultimate authority for Congress. And with that authority, Congress is able to delegate certain powers over D.C. to the president and it has. And that's why President Trump partially cited the authority that's vested in him via the Home Rule Act when he made today's announcement. So all this to say that the president's power in D.C. is broader than it would be in a state. But what I want to do is look at each action alone

and talk about the legal basis. First, federal oversight over the Metropolitan Police Section 740 of the Home Rule Act authorizes the president to assume control over the Metropolitan Police Department when he determines that special conditions of an emergency exist and that MPD must be used for federal purposes. During such emergencies, the president can direct the D.C. mayor to provide MPD services for federal use. but here's the thing. Authority can only last up to 48 hours without notice to Congress. If Congress is notified in writing, it can be extended for up to 30 days. For an extension longer than 30 days, Congress would have to pass a specific law. So we know that Trump declared a public safety emergency and signed an executive order

transferring control of MPD to the attorney general. This means that per the requirements of Section 740, Trump's move is lawful. However, it's also unprecedented, right, considering this is the first time the section has actually been invoked by a president. So we might see legal challenges here, but the law does seem to be clear that this is within the president's authority to do. Next, the activation of the National Guard. This is permissible too. This is a bit more straightforward. The president commands the National Guard troops in D.C. in the same way that a state governor commands National Guard troops in his or her state.

the D.C. National Guard is specifically commanded by the president. So Trump activating the National Guard in D.C. is very much within his authority. The last thing I want to talk about is crime rates in D.C. There's been a lot of talk about crime rates. We have some people saying crime rates are down. Others saying crime rates are still very, very bad. So here's what we know. According to statistics from D.C. law enforcement, crime has decreased from 2024. This includes a 26% decrease in violent crime, a 12% decrease in homicides, a 37% decrease in carjackings, a 20% decrease in assault with dangerous weapons, and a 28% decrease in robbery. Local officials say that violent crime has hit a 30-year low.

However, the DC Police Union has actually accused DC law enforcement of manipulating crime statistics to make it look like violent crime is down. Greg Pemberton, the head of D.C.'s police union, says that some leaders within D.C. law enforcement pressure officers to reclassify violent crimes like armed robberies, carjackings, assaults with a deadly weapon as lesser offenses. He alleges that in some cases, crimes have been removed from the database entirely so that they don't appear in daily department reports and are not counted in FBI crime. data. What is seemingly undisputed, though, is that violent crime in D.C. did fall, has fallen after a post-pandemic spike in 2023 by how much is the question. Notably, even with the drop last year, D.C. is still ranked fourth worst among U.S. cities for homicides, just behind St. Louis,

New Orleans, and Detroit. So it's undisputed that crime rates are down from the spike in 2023. We just don't really know how much they're down because we're getting conflicting stories from the Metropolitan Police Department and the D.C. Police Union. Okay. For these last two stories, I'm actually going to address some more specific requests that I've received lately. The first one has to do with a proposed bill in California, specifically California Assembly Bill 495. It's drawn significant attention nationwide. So I want to break down what the proposal actually says and why it's generating discussion. The proposed bill, also known as the Family Preparedness Act of 2025, was first introduced in the California State Assembly in February. It was introduced in response to concerns

that federal immigration policies could result in parents being separated from their children and aims to streamline the process for temporary guardianship and caregiver arrangements for children. Opponents of the bill, though, have expressed concerns about the bill's potential to create loopholes for child custody or weekend parental rights. So here is what the bill would do if it's passed as written. Number one, it would create a new joint guardianship option in probate court, which would allow a custodial parent to remain a legal guardian while also naming a second guardian of their choosing.

Two, it would expand caregivers' authorization affidavits so that non-relatives have the same authority as relatives. Currently, relatives can make a range of decisions for a child, including medical care, whereas non-relatives are limited mainly to school-related decisions. Notably, though, this caregiver's authorization affidavit would remain valid only until rescinded by the parents. It cannot exceed one year from the execution date. Three, the proposal would broaden the definition.

of non-relative extended family member to include individuals with an established familial or mentoring relationship with the child or the child's relatives. Number four, it would limit what schools and child care facilities can ask about a child's or families, citizenship, or immigration status. And five, it would outline a process for emergency contact instructions when a parent is unavailable. So supporters see this bill as a way to prevent disruptions in a child's care, particularly in emergencies by allowing trusted adults, whether relatives or not, to step in quickly. They see this mainly applying to children who are at risk or whose parents are at risk of detention or deportation. Opponents, though, are concerned about potential misuse of that

caregiver's authorization affidavit. They don't like that the affidavits wouldn't require the custodial parent to verify the caregiver's identity. which they say could open the door to disputes, unauthorized custody, potentially even fraud. So the bill is currently scheduled to be reviewed by the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 18th. If it's approved, it would go to the full Senate for a vote and then eventually head to Governor Newsom's desk. The second request that I've received a lot lately deals with this new proposed bill related to pesticide regulations. Now, this is a federal bill, unlike the California bill we just talked about. So some people are claiming that pesticide companies are close to being granted full immunity from lawsuits.

Others are saying that's not the case. So let's get down to the bottom of it. The House Appropriations Committee recently passed a bill containing a provision that sounds a little bit complex, but I'll read it to you and then I'll break it down. So it says, quote, none of the funds made available by this or any other act may be used to issue or adopt any guidance or any policy, take any regulatory action, or approve any labor. or change to such labeling that is inconsistent with or in any respect different from the conclusion of either a human health assessment performed pursuant to the federal insecticide, fungicide, and rodenticide act, or a carcinogenicity classification for a pesticide, end quote. So I'm going to make this more simple, okay? What this means is that under this provision, no government money can be used to create or enforce rules, policies, or label

changes for pesticides that would conflict with the assessments or cancer risk classifications that have already been made under federal law. So let's just say that the EPA reviews a weed killer, determines that the weed killer is not likely to cause cancer. Under this provision, the EPA, USDA, or any other federal agency could not approve a product label that says that the product may cause cancer. They couldn't issue federal safety guidance warning people to avoid the product due to cancer risk. And they couldn't make new federal regulations restricting the product's use based on cancer concerns because all of those things would contradict the EPA's assessment that the product does not cause cancer. So here's a real world comparison. The EPA determined that glyphosate,

the active ingredient in Roundup, is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. The state of California, under Proposition 65, wanted warning labels on Roundup saying it's known to cause cancer because based on a World Health Organization agency's finding, it is. Under this proposed law, a federal agency could not, similarly, like California did, approve a warning label saying glyphosate is known to cause cancer because that label would conflict with the EPA's determination that it doesn't cause cancer. States could still issue warning labels, though they might be challenged under other federal laws like California's warning label was, but federal agencies would not be able to issue warning labels that conflict with federal findings. Opponents of this provision argue that

while it doesn't explicitly grant immunity to pesticide companies, it could make it harder for consumers to sue pesticide companies. And that's because these kinds of lawsuits often hinge on whether a company failed to warn about a risk. So if federal law prevents agencies from requiring updated warnings until the EPA changes its official assessment, companies can then just argue that they were simply following federal labeling rules. Supporters of the provision, though, argue that this new proposed law ensures consistent science-based labeling nationwide and prevents conflicting or misleading warnings. As of now, the bill has passed the House Appropriations Committee, which means it still needs to go to a floor vote in both the House and the Senate

before it would make its way to the president's desk. So that's what you need to know on that front. All right. Now for some quick hitters, the Supreme Court has been formally asked to overturn its 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which granted the right to same-sex marriage. A former Kentucky County clerk who was jailed for six days in 2015 after refusing to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple on religious grounds is arguing that her First Amendment protection for free exercise of religion immunizes her from personal liability for the denial of marriage licenses. More so, she claims that the court's decision in Obergefell was egregiously wrong, and must be corrected.

The justices will decide in the coming months whether they will take up the case. A federal judge in New York rejected the Trump administration's request to unseal grand jury transcripts from the Jislane Maxwell case, ruling that the documents would add virtually no new information beyond what was already publicly presented at Maxwell's 2021 trial. The judge criticized the DOJ's request, suggesting it appeared more like a political distraction than a genuine push for transparency. This is the second judge to reject the administration's request to unseal grand jury transcripts related to Epstein's prosecution. An explosion at a U.S. steel plant near Pittsburgh today killed at least one person, injured dozens more, and left at least two workers missing.

Emergency crews are actively conducting rescue operations despite structural damage, smoke, and debris, and the cause of the explosion has not yet been determined. And President Trump signed an executive order that will prevent U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods from taking effect for another 90 days. The story is still developing, or at least was still developing when I hit record, but this is according to a White House official that spoke to CNBC not too long ago. Let's finish this episode with some critical thinking. The segment is not meant to be too complex. It is not meant to stump you. It is just to get you thinking a little bit deeper about a particular issue or story. So let's revisit the federalization of DC. First, I'll ask supporters some questions, then I'll ask opponents some questions, and then I'll

pose a question for everyone. For those that support federalization, ask yourself how much authority the federal government should have over local policing, even in a federal district like D.C., right? So considering D.C. has its own local government, what would be considered too much federal authority? Where would you draw that line and why? For those that oppose the federal given that D.C. is home to major federal institutions and a large federal workforce, does the federal government have a unique responsibility to intervene quickly during emergency situations? Why or why not? If you think the answer is yes, how far should those emergency powers extend? If your answer is no, what's the solution if local police don't take enough

action during the emergency, whether it's because they just don't have enough manpower or simply because they just choose not to. And then a general question for everyone is this. Would your view on presidential intervention change if the political party in power or the individual president were different? And if so, why? That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. Have a fantastic next few days. And I will talk to you again on Thursday. You know, I'm going to be able to say