UNBIASED - Trump Bans CNN, MS NOW & Politico: What the Law Says | Greenland Deal + AI Force

Starting point is 00:00:00 Welcome back to unbiased politics. It's Monday, September 21st. It is definitely a Monday that feels like a Monday. I don't know about you. But truly, I feel like everything is just much more complicated than it has to be today. But anyway, we're going to get caught up on the news. And today we are talking about Trump banning outlets from the White House. We're talking about Trump's plans to add a military complex to his planned arch. We're talking about the Greenland Agreement and more. Don't forget to like, share and subscribe if you're watching on YouTube. And share. share with a friend if you're listening audio only. I do keep this show completely free. So one of the best ways that you can support me is by doing any one of those things that I just mentioned. So thank you in advance. All right. First story. The big story from the weekend, President Trump has banned CNN, MS now and Politico from the White House. Those outlets have now sued the administration. So when the reporters from all three outlets showed up to work on Saturday morning after Trump had made this announcement on Friday. They were turned away. Their press badges had been disabled, and in some cases those badges were confiscated. Now, all of this started on Friday.

Starting point is 00:01:10 Okay, Trump posted a truth social in part, quote, I am proud to announce that effective immediately, I am banning fake news, CNN, MS Now, and Politico from the White House as a result of their constant, quote unquote, reporting fake news. Media outlets shouldn't be able to constantly write or report fiction and lies when they're covering the president of the United States, the Trump administration, or the United States of America. Other fake news media outlets to follow, end quote. So initially, it wasn't totally clear what Trump meant by a ban. We didn't know whether he was saying that they wouldn't be allowed into the Oval Office specifically, whether they'd be kicked out of the White House press pool, whether they'd be banned from entering the White House altogether.

Starting point is 00:01:54 We just didn't know. But shortly after he made the announcement, reporters asked him about it. And here's a snippet of what he said. Mr. President, earlier today you posted that you intend to ban CNN Politico and MS now from the White House. Yeah. Every president takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, which includes the First Amendment. I do too. How do you justify?

Starting point is 00:02:18 Much more so than you. Because they're fake news. You get so tired of reading and seeing fake news. There may be others to join. maybe others to join them, and maybe they can get better and would like to have men. But our country has to have honest news. You know, you don't have a country unless you have, as I say, borders, good voting. And you know what you need?

Starting point is 00:02:38 You need a free press. You need a fair press and an honest press. And CNN, and you know it, and everybody knows it. You're intelligent. I've done you a long time. You know how fake they're reporting is. It's one-sided. It's never good.

Starting point is 00:02:52 I've done many, many. Look at this story today. We lowered the drug causes by 50, 60. 70% they will find a reason why that's a negative okay yeah are you trying to intimidate the press from doing no no no i i dislike dishonest press like you i think you're terrible but i dislike dishonest i like to see honest press yeah please how is this action legal and constitutional considering the first amendment and governor sanders you were white house press secretary do you agree with this plan to ban news outlets well i'll just answer it again i'll say it the same way i don't think

Starting point is 00:03:24 somebody should be allowed to come in and write fake stories. There's something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposely negative stories. Now, if they want to write them, that's fine, but I don't have to let them into the people's house. So that's what we knew right off the bat. But then Saturday morning rolls around and reporters from these three outlets tried to go to work at the White House and they couldn't get in. There was a CNN White House reporter who said her badge, had been deactivated and was confiscated. There was an MS Now reporter who said she made it through the first couple of security checkpoints.

Starting point is 00:04:02 But when she got to the point where she had to scan her badge, she was told that the badge had been disabled and she was asked to turn it over. And then there was a Politico reporter who also was denied entry and had her badge confiscated. So that was Saturday morning. Last night, so Sunday night, the White House removed CNN as the primary TV pool network for today. And then that had a snowball effect across really the major media network. So here's what happened. CNN was scheduled to serve as the primary TV pool for today. So ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and Fox have this longstanding rotation where they take turns sending a camera crew with the president.

Starting point is 00:04:45 Because there are plenty of situations where you can't just, you know, you can't fit five different TV crews around him. Maybe he's in the Oval Office, maybe he's traveling, whatever. So whichever network's turn it is to get access, they then record what happens and then share that video with everybody else. That's why sometimes you'll turn on CNN and then Fox and then NBC and you'll see the exact same footage of the president. Well, today, that was supposed to be, it was supposed to be CNN's turn. And CNN was scheduled to travel with Trump to New York for the UN General Assembly. But when the White House sent out its schedule last night, CNN had been removed as the primary TV pool network. And there was no other primary network listed in its place.

Starting point is 00:05:31 Then this morning, the other networks that are part of this TV pool, so Fox, ABC, CBS, and NBC came out. And they said they weren't going to send somebody in to replace CNN. In fact, the five network TV pool said that for now, it's suspending pooled. TV coverage of presidential events altogether while CNN is being prevented from taking its assigned turns. The five networks also released a joint statement saying, quote, the public's, the public has a vital interest in receiving accurate, independent information about its government. No administration should restrict a news organization because it objects to its reporting. And quote, now let me take a second and explain what this means because it doesn't, it doesn't mean that there's just nobody covering Trump at

Starting point is 00:06:19 all. Okay, there are still print reporters, photographers, radio reporters. There's other TV crews covering him. So, for example, his trip to New York today, the White House listed Real America's voice as the secondary TV crew. And then there are also other regular reporters from several other outlets. So there can still be video of Trump, but what's missing is that usual five network pool camera. If there's an event where only one TV camera can fit, these five networks are are saying that for now, they are not going to provide that camera. And according to Fox News's Brian Botton, who chairs the TV pool, this isn't just about today's UN trip. This suspension of pool TV coverage applies to all presidential events while CNN is prevented from fulfilling

Starting point is 00:07:07 its assigned pool duties. Other kinds of pool coverage, like coverage of Congress and other events, that will continue as normal. But as far as presidential events goes, that's what's being affected here. Now, obviously, this has prompted the big question, right? Can Trump legally do this? Can he legally ban CNN, MSN, MS now, and Politico from the White House? This is where, per usual, it gets a little complicated, but there is actually case law on this. So back in 1997, a federal appeals court decided a case called Cheryl v. Knight, where a journalist was denied a White House press pass, and the court essentially said that the public doesn't have an unlimited right to walk into the White House. But once the government creates a press pass system and gives journalists access, denying a

Starting point is 00:07:57 journalist that access can implicate the First Amendment. So at minimum, the government has to provide a reason for denying the pass, give the journalists an opportunity to respond and give the journalist a written decision. That would essentially be the due process, right? And we actually saw that precedent come up during Trump's first term with CNN reporter Jim Acosta. So Trump and Acosta got into it at a press conference in 2018 and the White House took Acosta's press pass away. Well, CNN sued and a federal judge made the White House restore it. And that ruling focused on the fact that Acosta hadn't been given adequate due process before his credential was taken away. Now, in addition to Cheryl, we have a much more recent case involving the Associated Press.

Starting point is 00:08:42 You probably remember that. We've talked about it at length on this podcast. But last year, the administration restricted the AP's access to certain presidential events after the AP kept using the name Gulf of Mexico instead of Trump's name change Gulf of America. The AP sued. And initially a federal judge sided with AP and said the government could not exclude a news organization from presidential events simply because of its viewpoint. But the appeals court later put most of that ruling on hold while the case continued because the appeals court found that the administration had had a stronger argument when it came to small limited access spaces like the Oval Office or Air Force One, places where there might only be room for a handful of reporters.

Starting point is 00:09:32 The court did not put the portion of the ruling on hold that involved the bigger East Room. It's a bigger space with potentially more access. Now, that case is still being litigated so we don't have a final ruling on all of these questions just yet. But if we compare what happened with the AP to what is now happening with CNN, MS now and Politico, what is happening now? It's not that it's it's not necessarily the same thing as what happened with the AP because CNN, MS now and Politico weren't just kept out of certain limited access presidential events. Their White House credentials were disabled and they were they were turned away. from the grounds altogether. So this situation raises some different legal questions than the AP case. As of this morning, CNN, MSN out and Politico did sue the administration. They have asked a judge

Starting point is 00:10:21 to restore their access on an emergency basis. And they're making two constitutional arguments here. So as I'm sure you can imagine, the first argument is that this ban violates the First Amendment because Trump took away their access specifically because he did not like their reporting. And then second, they argue that it violates the right to do process because their credentials were revoked without any notice or any opportunity to challenge the decision beforehand. That second argument, of course, is the issue that came up in the Jim Acosta case that we just talked about. Trump, meanwhile, has defended the ban. He defended it again this morning. He wrote on true social, quote,

Starting point is 00:10:59 The White House is not instituting an assault on the free press, something which I cherish. It is instituting an assault on the fake news. something that has grown like cancer in our beloved United States of America. It is corrupt, purposeful, pervasive, fully coordinated and totally out of control. It is a threat to our national security and must be stopped now. And quote. So now that these outlets have gone ahead and filed a lawsuit, the first question for the court is whether these outlets should get their access back while the lawsuit plays out. That'll be the first decision. Then the bigger legal fight will be over, you know, exactly what access the White House can take away, what process it has to

Starting point is 00:11:39 give a news organization before doing that, whether the government can revoke access specifically because it disagrees with an outlet's reporting, all of those questions. But like I said, initially the question will be, should these outlets have their access restored while this litigation plays out? Let's take our first break here. When we come back, we'll talk about a potential military complex being added to Trump's planned triumphal arch. The Greenland deal and more. In Toronto, every arrival is a statement, and nothing says it better than this.

Starting point is 00:12:10 Cadillac Optic was the number one selling luxury EV in Canada for 2025. Find your rhythm across a seamless 33-inch display and an immersive 19-speaker AKG surround audio system. This city demands agility, and Optic delivers with precision to make every drive extraordinary. Let's take the Cadillac. Find out more at Cadillac Canada.ca. Luxury sales claim based on S&P Global Mobility

Starting point is 00:12:32 Canadian New Vehicle Total Registrations for Canada, year 2025 for the Cadillac definition of luxury. Welcome back. President Trump says the 250 foot triumphal arch he wants to build near Arlington National Cemetery will also serve as some sort of military complex complete with drones, snipers, and ammo. So let's back up just a little bit, because there is quite a bit of context here. Trump has been pushing to build this big triumphal arch at Memorial Circle, which is the traffic circle at the end of Arlington Memorial Bridge. So if you're familiar with DC, if you're standing at the Lincoln Memorial looking across the Potomac toward Arlington National Cemetery, the arch would sit along that route. The plan is for the arch

Starting point is 00:13:14 to be about 250 feet tall, which is actually more than twice the height of the Lincoln Memorial. And Trump has compared it to the Arc de Triumph in Paris, except he said ours needs to be slightly bigger. The administration has said the arch is supposed to commemorate America's 250th anniversary and create a grand entrance into DC. Well, then yesterday morning, he posted on Truth Social quote, at the strongest request of the United States military and for national security purposes, I have agreed to convert the magnificent Triumphal Arch planned since the Civil War era many years ago into a top grade military complex slash triumphal arch to house, store, and have the rapid ability to use large numbers of drones plus snipers on both the roof and plaza

Starting point is 00:14:02 plaza areas and additionally have and hold large quantities of sniper ammunition in storage. There will be no facility like this anywhere in the world. Out of the 59 top cities and capitals, Washington, D.C. is the only one of the world that does not have a triumphal arch, but it will now and by far the greatest of them all. And quote, a couple of things worth mentioning here. Number one, Trump says that this change was made at the quote unquote strong request of the military, but as of today, we haven't heard from the Pentagon regarding that request. Multiple news outlets have reached out to both the White House and Defense Department for more

Starting point is 00:14:38 information. Neither has provided additional details as of at least today when I was writing the episode. So we don't really know anything else on that. Two, Trump said that this is an arch that has been planned since the Civil War era. And there is a pretty long history of planners wanting some sort of monumental feature at or around this particular site. but the specific 250-foot triumphal arch that Trump is proposing now is a completely new design. So that's just the context that you need to know there.

Starting point is 00:15:08 Keep in mind that even before Trump announced this military component, the arch was already going through a pretty complicated approval process. So the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts reviewed it and actually approved the architectural design. The National Capital Planning Commission is in the process of reviewing. It's reviewed parts of the project still hasn't given the final approval. It also has to go through the, or it has to go through federal historic preservation review because it's going to be built in a historically significant area of D.C. And because it would sit so close to Reagan National Airport, the FAA had to review whether the structure would interfere with air traffic. Now on Friday, the FAA did determine that it would not pose a hazard, although it did say that the arch has to have an eternal flame on top and that floodlights have to be pointed at the arch.

Starting point is 00:15:58 so pilots can see it. All this to say, though, that the arch was already going through this pretty complicated review process still is. And now this new military component could add another layer to all of that. Now, there's also a lawsuit trying to stop the arch from being built. Three military veterans and an architectural historian sued the administration, arguing, among other things, that Congress never authorized the monument and that putting a 250-foot structure in Memorial Circle would interfere with the historic. historic visual connection between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery. The administration disagrees with that argument and says Congress has already authorized a monumental

Starting point is 00:16:39 project in this area about 100 years ago. So it doesn't need Congress to pass a brand new law approving this specific arch. And that actually brings us back to what Trump said in his post about the arch being planned during the Civil War era. So I mentioned that there is some history, right, of plans to create some sort of monumental connection between Washington and Arlington. this specific triumphal arch was not the plan. Now, the additional context there is that starting in 1901 and 1902, there was something called the McMillan plan, which laid out this broader vision for a monumental corridor between Washington and Arlington. Then in the 1920s, plans for the Arlington Memorial Bridge project included a monumental plaza. That plaza was supposed to be near

Starting point is 00:17:26 the entrance to Arlington with two 166 foot columns. And it was just, it was this like bigger project that Congress did authorize in 1925. And the bridge ended up getting built, but the columns were not built. The bigger plaza was not built. That unfinished part of the project is really where the legal fight stems from. So the administration's argument is that when Congress approved that broader plan back in 1925, it, it already gave the government the authority to build a monumental feature in this area and the arch fits within that authority. But the people suing argue that Congress authorizing a bridge and certain monumental entrance features 100 years ago is not the same thing as Congress approving this new 250-foot arch. So that's one of the issues that the

Starting point is 00:18:11 court is currently dealing with. And then again, now on top of that, we have this new military component that we really don't know too much about at this point. So we'll have to see how that changes things as far as the review process and the lawsuit. But that's what we know at this point. Moving on. President Trump says the United States has reached a new agreement with Denmark and Greenland that would give the U.S. a much larger and apparently permanent role in Greenland security. Now, I will say Trump announced this agreement on Friday, but Denmark and Greenland say that they expect to actually sign the agreement next week while the leaders of these countries are in New York for the UN General Assembly. And then even after it's saying,

Starting point is 00:18:52 they say it still has to go through the necessary parliamentary procedures in Greenland and Denmark before it takes effect. Now, according to Trump, the United States will have what he called, quote, permanent control over security, end quote, in Greenland. Based on what the White House is saying, that security control is pretty broad. The administration says the agreement gives the U.S. the complete and independent ability to do whatever it determines is necessary in Greenland to defend the American continent, including permanent access, basing, and overflight rights. The U.S. would also be allowed to increase the number of military bases that it has in Greenland as needed. No non-NATO country would be allowed to establish a military base or troop

Starting point is 00:19:39 presence there. And the administration says only the United States and its allies would be allowed to make certain, quote unquote, sensitive investments. We still don't know exactly what qualifies as a sensitive investment because the agreement has not been made public. But according to both the White House and a State Department official, all of these security guarantees would stay in place even if Greenland eventually became independent from Denmark. Denmark has emphasized the fact that the Arctic security under the agreement would still be a shared NATO responsibility rather than something the United States handles on its own. Now, the question that a lot of people have is does this mean the United States now controls Greenland? And according to both Denmark and Greenland,

Starting point is 00:20:24 the answer is no, at least not in the sense that Greenland now belongs to the United States, right? Denmark and Greenland both say this agreement specifically recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and Greenlander's right to self-determination. So what we're talking about here is permanent U.S. control in the security context rather than a sovereignty context. it's worth mentioning that the United States already has military rights in Greenland. The United States and Denmark signed a defense agreement all the way back in 1951 during the Cold War that gave the United States pretty broad authority to operate military facilities and station American personnel there. What's different here, at least based on what we know so far, is one, the agreement would make U.S. military access permanent.

Starting point is 00:21:11 two, it would allow the United States to expand its military presence as needed. And three, it would put new restrictions on who else can establish a military or sensitive economic presence in Greenland. Now, as for why Greenland is so important to the United States, a lot of it comes down to location. Greenland sits between North America and the Arctic right along potential missile and aircraft routes from Russia. So having a military presence there gives the United States. important position when it comes to monitoring and defending North America. Then there's also the Arctic

Starting point is 00:21:46 itself. Russia already has a pretty large military presence in the Arctic, and China's been trying to expand its influence there as well. So there's this growing competition over who has access to the region and its resources. And when, you know, speaking of resources, Greenland also has a lot of critical minerals and rare earth minerals, things that are used in everything from military equipment to cell phones to, I mean, tons of other electronics. So for all of those reasons, Greenland is important for the United States. But keep in mind, there are still a ton of details we don't know. We have not actually seen this agreement yet. We don't know exactly how this permanent control language is written into the agreement. We don't know what investments would qualify a sensitive. We don't even know

Starting point is 00:22:28 what a sensitive investment means. We don't know how much the U.S. military presence would actually expand. We don't know a lot. So we should get a much better idea of how all of that works. once this agreement is actually signed, presumably this week, and then, of course, once it's released. President Trump says he's creating a new AI force and plans to appoint a new AI czar. Obviously, this comes on the heels of some prominent AI executives and researchers calling for a slowdown in the development of the most advanced AI systems. Trump has pushed back on that. He says it doesn't need to slow down that we need to beat China in the AI race. He also called these concerns a hoax.

Starting point is 00:23:06 Well, on Saturday, Trump on Truth Social wrote, quote, over the years, there have been many hoaxes all generated by radical left Democrats, Russia, Ukraine, global warming, impeachment hoax number one, impeachment hoax number two, men and women's sports, transgender for everyone. And now the decimation or destruction of AI, commonly known as artificial intelligence. And I, as president of the United States, will not stand by and let this happen. We will not in any way hinder or stifle the growth of this incredible industry. Rather, we will change. We will change. perish it, help it, and watch over it as it grows. However, we will also be looking for bad, and we can do that very easily with our already existing criminal and civil justice system. For this purpose, I am forming the AI force, much like I did Space Force, which has been a tremendous success in my first term. To that end, I will be announcing in the near future the AI czar. Only high IQ individuals need apply, end quote. Now, we don't know exactly what this AI force would look like, right? But I will say if he means a, let's say like a White House task force, an advisory group, some sort of executive branch initiative, there are ways that a president

Starting point is 00:24:16 can put something like that together using his executive authority. If he's talking, though, about creating an entirely new department or an agency or a military branch, he mentioned space force with, you know, a branch that has its own statutory powers and funding, he would need Congress. That's actually what happened with Space Force. Trump pushed for it, but Congress formally created it through the 2020 defense bill and then Trump signed it into law. And then the same kind of question applies to this AI czar. Trump says he's going to a point because czar itself doesn't really tell us what power this person would have or what exactly they would be responsible for. Zar is a word that presidents and the media use for officials

Starting point is 00:24:55 who are put in charge of coordinating policy on a specific issue. Right. So George W. Bush had officials who were referred to as drug czars. Obama had a car czar during the auto industry. bailout. Biden had a climate czar. Trump currently has a border czar. So presidents from both sides have had czars. But exactly what authority a czar has depends on the position the president gives them and, you know, where they sit within the government. Now, what's interesting is that Trump already had an AI czar. So venture capitalist David Sachs served as Trump's AI and CryptoZar in 2025 just last year. But Sachs was actually serving as what's called a special government employee. Special government special government employees can only work for the federal government for a certain number of days.

Starting point is 00:25:38 Elon Musk was also a special government employee when he was doing that doge work, which is why he left. So Sacks actually stepped down from that position in March and moved into another advisory role where he still advises Trump on AI and other technology issues. He's just not in that same position. So it's unclear how similar or different a new AIsar role would be from what Sacks was doing. as of now, no executive order, no legislation, nothing to really tell us how this AI force would work or what this AIs are or would be responsible for. It's just an idea from Trump at this point. Let's take our second and final break here. When we come back, we'll talk about what's going on in the Middle East.

Starting point is 00:26:17 And then we'll finish with quick hitters and critical thinking. Welcome back. All right. There are a few things that have happened over the last few days that are raising questions about whether we're heading toward another escalation in the Middle East. Over the weekend, the State Department issued new security alerts, Americans in Iran. were specifically told to leave Iran immediately. Trump left Camp David a day early, unexpectedly. Iran says it has information the U.S. could be preparing another attack.

Starting point is 00:26:42 And Trump says that he's in what he called deciding mode when it comes to what happens next with Iran. So let's go through all of it because there are a lot of things happening at once. We'll start with that security alert. On Saturday, the State Department issued a new warning for Americans throughout the Middle East saying that because of tensions in the region, there's a, quote, potential for unforeseen escalation, end quote. Americans who are already in the Middle East were told to be extra vigilant and be prepared for things like canceled flights, airspace closures, and other travel disruptions, while Americans who are not currently in the Middle East were told to, quote unquote,

Starting point is 00:27:17 seriously reconsider traveling to or through the region. The State Department also specifically pointed to the fighting between Saudi Arabia and the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen and said the conflict, quote, has the potential to escalate rapidly. And quote. And we'll talk about that part more in just a minute. But after that warning from the State Department, the U.S. Virtual Embassy in Iran issued an alert saying not to travel to Iran for any reason and that U.S. citizens who are in Iran should leave now. Keep in mind that Iran was already at the highest threat warning, which is level four, do not travel. That's been the State Department's warning for Iran since before this weekend.

Starting point is 00:27:57 end, the difference now is that the State Department is specifically telling any Americans who are still in Iran to get out and warning them that flights could be canceled, airspace could close, and even the rules for getting out through Iran's land borders could change with little notice. Because also keep in mind, the United States doesn't have an embassy in Iran. So its ability to help Americans leave is limited. The virtual embassy, as the name implies, is an online State Department platform. It's not a physical U.S. embassy in Tehran that Americans could. just go to if something were to happen. So what prompted this new warning? Well, one of the things, like I said, the State Department specifically pointed to what was happening in Saudi Arabia over the weekend. Saudi Arabia was struck by Houthi missiles. And just for context, Saudi Arabia and the Houthis have been fighting on and off for years. However, the fighting has definitely picked up ever since this conflict with Iran started. But in recent months, the Houthis have been taking more and more territory in Yemen and launching missiles and drones at Saudi Arabia.

Starting point is 00:28:57 Saudi Arabia has also been carrying out retaliatory air strikes in Yemen, so we've just seen this back and forth continue to grow. In fact, you might have heard about the attacks on Saudi Arabia last week where drones hit Saudi Arabia's East-West oil pipeline. That's a pipeline that's really important right now because it's how Saudi Arabia moves oil to the Red Sea without having to send it through the Strait of Hormuz. That attack shut down the pipeline and it's unclear when the pipeline will resume normal operations, but that means Saudi Arabia has had less. ability to move oil along that route. More recently, this past weekend, the Houthis launched missiles and drones towards the capital of Saudi Arabia, which looks to be their first attack on the capital since fighting picked up. So when the State Department says that this conflict could escalate quickly, the concern is that Saudi Arabia gets pulled even further into this fight and the conflict

Starting point is 00:29:49 just keeps spreading across the region. And then while all of this was going on, Trump left Camp David a day earlier than expected. He came back to the White House. He got to Camp David Friday night. He was originally supposed to stay through Sunday. But Saturday night, the White House updated his schedule and said he was coming back that night instead. So obviously, given everything else happening at the same time, him leaving Camp David raised questions about whether something was about to happen in the Middle East. But at this point, we don't know with any degree of certainty why Trump came back early. The White House has not given a reason. We do know that Sunday morning he went to his goal. Golf Club in Virginia and spent most of the day there. We did also find out that the administration

Starting point is 00:30:31 was considering military action over the weekend. The New York Times reported that on Sunday, the United States was preparing to launch air strikes against the Houthis. The Saudi Crown Prince had asked Trump for help. And according to that, reporting targets had already been approved and American personnel were loading bombs onto the aircraft when Trump decided not to go forward with the strikes, or at least to delay them. So could that have had something to do with why Trump came back early from Camp David, sure, but nobody has confirmed that. At the same time, Iran has been saying that it has information that the United States could be getting ready to attack it again. Iran's military did not say exactly what information it has or provide evidence, but it said that if the U.S.

Starting point is 00:31:10 does attack again, it would respond by targeting American bases and interests throughout the region and said that countries who help the United States carry out an attack could also be treated as part of the conflict. Now, as I've mentioned a few times throughout this episode, the U.N. General Assembly is happening in New York this week. Iran's president is expected to be there. Trump will also be there. Trump told a Fox News reporter this weekend that he is open to the possibility of talking to Iran's president. So we'll have to see what happens. But that's the latest in regards to the Middle East. Let's do some quick hitters. The state department has approved a potential $2.68 billion sale of air defense equipment to Ukraine, although the deal does still have to go through the congressional

Starting point is 00:31:50 review process. The package includes several types of missiles, launchers, counter drone radars and other equipment intended to strengthen Ukraine's air defenses. If the sale goes through, it would be paid for through a combination of contributions from European countries and U.S. military financing that was approved during the Biden administration. The State Department says the equipment would help Ukraine defend against current and future aerial threats and wouldn't require additional U.S. personnel to be sent to Ukraine. A new lawsuit accuses Anthropic, Open AI, SpaceX AI, and Google of violating federal antitrust law when they recently agreed to slow the development of artificial intelligence. The lawsuit, which was filed by four people who pay for services,

Starting point is 00:32:33 including ChatGBT, BT, Claude, Grock, and Gemini argues that coordinated limits on AI development could reduce competition and the value consumers receive from these subscriptions. President Trump and New York City Mayor Zoranamondani are scheduled to meet today at Gracie Mansion while Trump is in New York for the UN General Assembly. Mom Donnie's office said the meeting will focus on issues affecting New York City and its residents, but neither side has announced a detailed agenda. This will be their third in-person meeting since MomDani was elected mayor, their first in New York City.

Starting point is 00:33:06 An ICE agent shot and injured a 28-year-old Venezuelan man in Austin, Texas, yesterday during an immigration enforcement operation. Wilbur Rafael Garces Perez was shot in the torso during what Austin police described as a brief foot pursuit and was hospitalized in serious but stable condition before being released into ICE custody. However, his attorney says neither she nor his wife has been able to determine where he is or whether he's receiving continued medical care. Federal officials say Garces Perez entered the U.S. illegally and has a final order of removal while his attorney said that he previously had a valid work permit and entered the country legally. Officials have not yet said what

Starting point is 00:33:46 led the ICE agent to fire. DC court officials are asking Congress for more funding, saying years of flat budgets have made it harder to keep up with the rising caseloads and security needs. Unlike most local court systems, D.C.'s courts are funded entirely by the federal government, and they're requesting $298.1 million for the next fiscal year, including a $35 million increase in operating funds. Court officials say criminal filings have increased about 150 percent since 2023, while the percent. percentage of criminal cases resolved compared with new cases filed has fallen from 108% to 60%. House appropriators have proposed a budget that would instead cut D.C. courts funding by about $18 million, though that proposal has not yet passed the full House and the Senate is still working on its version. And sources say Paramount Skydance has reached a settlement with California and 11 other states that sued to block its proposed acquisition of Warner Brothers Discovery.

Starting point is 00:34:46 The states had argued that the merger would reduce competition in the film. and television industries, while Paramount has defended the deal and says the combined company would be better positioned to compete with streaming companies like Netflix and Disney. As part of the reported settlement, Paramount would have to create independent editorial boards for CNN and CBS, and it also would commit to releasing at least 30 movies per year and could face a $30 million penalty if it falls short of that requirement. All right, now for some critical thinking, we are going back to the media ban. First, what role do you think biased media outlets play in a free press society? Can biased outlets serve an important purpose by scrutinizing people, scrutinizing institutions,

Starting point is 00:35:34 talking about issues that other outlets might not talk about? Or does bias make it harder for the press to do its job of keeping the public informed? And then second, do you think there should ever be a point where a president is allowed to revoke a news outlets access because of its reporting? If so, what would that standard have to look like to make it as objective as possible and prevent a president from just banning outlets they don't like? Or, on the flip side, do you think that giving a president that kind of power is too risky? Even in cases where maybe an outlet has repeatedly gotten things wrong or maybe an outlet intentionally publishes false information?

Starting point is 00:36:15 what do you think about that that's what i have for you thank you so much for being here i hope you have a fantastic next couple of days and i will talk to you on thursday

UNBIASED - Trump Bans CNN, MS NOW & Politico: What the Law Says | Greenland Deal + AI Force

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.