UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (1/13/25): Will TikTok Be Banned? Was the LAFD Budget CUT or INCREASED?? Military Equipment and Weapons STOLEN From a U.S. Army Reserve? Here’s All the Information You Need.

Episode Date: January 13, 2025

Welcome back to UNBIASED. In today's episode: LA Fire Update; How Are CA Inmates Helping Fight the Fires? And Was the LAFD Budget CUT or INCREASED?? Here's the Context You Need. (1:35) Multiple Suspects Steal Weapons and Equipment from US Army Reserve in CA (7:47) President-Elect Trump's Inauguration Schedule Released. Here's What You Can Expect. (9:17) House Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Allow Trump to Start Greenland Acquisition Talks (11:20) Supreme Court Hears TikTok Case. What You Need to Know About the Arguments and the Concerns From the Justices (13:20) Quick Hitters: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal from Meta that Could Expose the Company to a Multi-Billion Dollar Loss, Texas Sues AllState for Secretly Acquiring User Data and Using it for Gain, Judge Allows Special Counsel Report on Trump to be Released, Biden Forgives More Student Debt, and Senate Confirmation Hearings Begin Tomorrow (24:56) Listen/Watch this episode AD-FREE on Patreon. 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. Today is Monday, January 13th. Let's talk about some news. But first, you know, I almost always have to open the episodes with a note or two. Today, I happen to have two. Number one, if you're watching on YouTube, you'll see I have a new camera angle going on today. We switch things up.

It's a new year, new camera angle, new studio setup. So that is exciting. And two, speaking of a new studio setup, my studio was just treated with acoustic panels this weekend. And I just wanna give a quick shout out to Charlie at Music City Acoustics. He did not ask for the shout out at all.

So hopefully he's okay with it. But he reached out a couple of months ago. He told me him and his wife absolutely love what I do, love the show, love the mission, and he wanted to help in some way. And the best way that he knew how was to outfit my studio with a sound treatment. So I highly, highly recommend Music City Acoustics. The panels are such high quality, they shipped them to me. Shipping is such a breeze and overall just such a great product. I can notice the difference as I'm talking right now. The room is not as echoey.

It sounds so much better. So if you have an office space, conference rooms, a studio, whatever, and you need some acoustic treatments, I highly, highly recommend Music City Acoustics and Charli, who is the lead installer. So thank you again, Charli. I know you didn't ask for this, but I want everyone to know how awesome you are. Alright, let's get into some news, starting with the LA fires, which officials are now saying may be the most expensive natural disaster in US history. Since the last episode, the Sunset and Lydia fires have been extinguished, but there are

currently still three active fires, and the Palisades fire is still growing by the day. The three active fires are the Eaton fire, which has grown to just over 14,000 acres, is currently 33% contained. The Palisades fire, which has grown to roughly 24,000 acres, is currently only 14% contained, and then the Hearst Fire, which is relatively small at 800 acres, and is 95% contained. All of those numbers are up to date as of this morning. The death toll as of Sunday night was at 24, but it is expected to increase, and that is

according to the County of LA Department of Medical Examiner. Another update since the last episode, there are currently 72 firefighters from Mexico, Canada sent a firefighting plane and there are a total of 931 California inmates helping fight the fires. And some of you had questions about how that works, how they get paid, just what the program is generally, so let's talk about it a little bit. The inmates are part of the Conservation Fire Camp program, which has 35 minimum security camps across 25 counties in California.

Those that participate in this program support state, local, and federal agencies in responding to all types of emergencies. So not just fires, but also floods, things of the like. And the reason they take part in this program is because once they're released, they have a better chance at job opportunities, criminal record expungement,

and it allows them to seek professional certifications for emergency response that they wouldn't have otherwise been able to, you know, having been incarcerated. Depending on their skill level, they're paid by the Department of Corrections anywhere from $5.80 to $10.24 per day. And when they're assigned to an active emergency, they earn an additional $1 an hour, which is paid for by Cal Fire, otherwise known as the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

During emergencies, these crews typically work 24-hour shifts. And then in addition to their pay, many of the camp participants, those that work on a fire crew rather than as support staff, also get two for one credits, meaning they get two extra days off their sentence for each day they serve. And then those that work as support staff get one for one credits.

So that's a little bit about the fire camp program and how those incarcerated individuals are able to help fight these fires. But speaking of pay, let's switch gears a little bit about the fire camp program and how those incarcerated individuals are able to help fight these fires. But speaking of pay, let's switch gears a little bit and clarify what's going on with the LAFD budget. Because let me tell you, a lot of people were telling me that I was providing misinformation by saying the LAFD budget was cut. So let's talk about this.

In May of 2024, the city of LA adopted a budget for fiscal year 2024-2025 that cut the appropriations for the LAFD by $17.6 million from the previous year. At the time, the City of LA was negotiating the union contract with the Firefighters Union to increase salaries and health benefits for the union members. Then, in November, so six months after the budget was adopted for fiscal year 2024 to 2025, the city council voted to approve a union contract for 2024 to 2028. This new contract would cost about 76 million dollars. So with that new contract approved, the total budget for the fire department in fiscal year 2024 to 2025 increased from 819 million to the 895 million when you add in that $76 million

cost from the 4-year union contract. When you compare the $895 million number to the previous year's budget of $837 million, yes, there is this roughly $58 million increase this fiscal year, but it's really important to note that the increase to the budget was a direct result of a four-year union contract specifically for salaries and health benefits, not operational department costs. What that means is that if we take out the newly negotiated contracts for salaries

and health benefits, the budget for the actual department, for equipment, for resources, for overtime pay, et cetera, decreased from the prior fiscal year. So I hope that clears things up. Now I do wanna add some more context because I love our little community here. I love when you guys write into me from specialized fields or with a unique experience where you can, you know,

provide us with some additional information that we wouldn't otherwise get from the news. So the wife of an LAFD firefighter wrote into me when I shared this budget clarification to my story on Instagram just a few days ago. And she further clarified that the increase of the salaries that was just approved was because the firefighters raises that were negotiated before COVID were deferred and never actually executed. So the firefighters got a small raise this year, but it's a fraction of what was owed from 2019 and 2020, and they should have been due another raise this year, but instead they just negotiated that new union contract for 2024 to

2028. So that's a little bit of additional information. Finally, as it pertains to the LAFD fires, a little congressional news. Trump and some Republican lawmakers had dinner at Mar-a-Lago last night and reportedly spoke about tying California aid to the debt ceiling Trump who recently spoke about his desire to extend or suspend the debt ceiling Now says that Congress should try to find a way to include an increase to the debt ceiling in a potential disaster relief package The US is at risk of defaulting on its borrowing authority in a matter of months, so Trump and some lawmakers want to see that debt ceiling increased to avoid that. On the other side, many fiscal conservatives are opposed to increasing the debt ceiling

without significant spending cuts. Meanwhile, Speaker Johnson, who was not at last night's Mar-a-Lago dinner, said today that he would like to see conditions attached to any disaster aid given to California. In speaking with CNN, he said it appears that state and local leaders in California were quote unquote derelict in their duties in many respects, including water source mismanagement and forest mismanagement mistakes, and that there should probably be conditions on the aid that will ultimately be provided. But speaking of the greater Los Angeles area, this next story is a little crazy. Last week, multiple suspects entered the Tustin Army Reserve, which is about 40 miles

south of downtown LA, and stole three Humvees, one of which is armored, eight machine gun vehicle mounts, seven freestanding machine gun tripods, medical equipment, 40 pairs of binoculars, and 18 bayonets, which are daggers that are designed to be mounted on the end of a rifle barrel and allows the gun to be used as a spear in close combat. Since the theft, two of the Humvees have been recovered, one in Santa Ana, California, the other in Orange, California, but the rest of the stolen equipment and one Humvee remains missing. In a statement, the Tustin Police Department wrote, quote, On Wednesday, January 8th, between 8 p.m. and 1130 p.m., unknown suspects entered a storage warehouse at the Army Reserve Center in Tustin. Multiple storage lockers were discovered with locks removed and missing gear. An attempt was made to cut

a uniform storage, obviously to steal army uniforms, however it was unsuccessful. A fence was cut to gain access to a military vehicle parking lot where three Humvees were stolen. The suspects left the area at an unknown time." The suspects have not been caught. Police are continuing to investigate and are asking anyone with information to contact the Tustin Police Department at 714-573-3245. In some other news, President-elect Trump's inauguration schedule is officially out. And here is what you can expect starting this weekend. So starting Saturday, there will be a President's Reception, Cabinet Reception, Vice President's

Dinner and Fireworks display at Trump National Golf Club in Virginia. On Sunday, a wreath-laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington National Cemetery, Trump's Make America Great Again victory rally at the Capital One Arena in DC, and then that will be followed by a candlelit dinner. Then Monday, which is Inauguration Day, will kick off with a service at St. John's Church, followed by tea at the White House, and then President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect Vance are scheduled to be sworn in at noon. Vance first, Trump second. And then that'll be followed by the official

farewell for President Biden and Vice President Harris. From there, President Biden and First Lady Jill will depart the Capitol by plane and Trump will head to the President's Room near the Senate's chamber where he'll sign nominations which will mark his first official acts in office. He could also sign some memos proclamations or maybe some executive orders but nominations for sure. Then he'll attend a luncheon hosted by the Joint Congressional Committee on inaugural ceremonies which has been a tradition since 1953 and from there the president and VP will head to the east front steps of the Capitol,

where they will review the military troops, who will then lead the presidential parade, which goes from the Capitol down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House. After the parade and an Oval Office signing ceremony, Trump will attend three different inaugural balls and is expected to speak at all three. And then finally on Tuesday, the activities will finish with the National Prayer Service. If you're interested in attending, I do have a resource for you in the sources section of this episode where you can actually apply for tickets. Alright, moving on. Earlier today, House Republicans introduced a bill that would allow President-elect

Trump to enter into negotiations with Denmark to acquire Greenland. So this news obviously comes on the heels of Trump's recent remarks about potentially buying Greenland, regaining control of the Panama Canal, and adding Canada as the 51st state. If you want to hear more about those comments, tune in to last Thursday's episode. But since those comments were made, some Republican lawmakers have been introducing bills to make these things happen. So Republican lawmaker Marjorie Taylor Greene introduced a bill to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America. That would be on official documents

and maps here in the United States if it passed. Then Representative Dusty Johnson and 15 other Republican lawmakers introduced a bill that would authorize talks to repurchase the Panama Canal. And now Representative Andy Ogles is introducing a bill called the Make Greenland Great Again Act. The very short bill says that Congress hereby authorizes the president, beginning at 120101 p.m. Eastern Time on January 20, 2025, to seek to enter into negotiations with the Kingdom of Denmark to secure the acquisition of Greenland by the United States. The bill then says not later than five calendar days after reaching an agreement with Denmark, the President shall send the agreement to the appropriate Congressional committees, who will have 60 days to review it,

and if no joint resolution of disapproval is enacted by Congress within that 60-day period, the agreement will take effect. Now keep in mind just because a bill is introduced doesn't mean it'll pass. Once a bill is introduced, it has to go to a committee for review and you know that committee could potentially amend it and then it would be voted on by the full chamber, and if it passes one chamber, it would move on to the other chamber for consideration. Okay, let's take our break here. When we come back, we'll dive into the TikTok case,

and we'll finish with some quick hitters. On Friday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the TikTok case. And though we're not really sure what will happen at this point, a decision is imminent because the ban is supposed to take effect this Sunday. So let's do what we usually do. We'll do a brief explanation about what's going on here.

And then we'll talk about the basic arguments on either side and how the justices were feeling during Friday's arguments. We've gone over this case a few times in the past, so I don't want to get too detailed at the risk of being too redundant, but Congress enacted what's called the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. That was in April of last year. And what that law said is that there is a national security risk with Americans using applications that are controlled by our foreign adversaries. So China, Russia,

Iran, and North Korea. The law also got a little more specific though and specifically defined apps controlled by foreign adversaries to include any app run by TikTok or ByteDance. The most likely reason Congress did this is because of the business structure of TikTok. The actual TikTok app is owned by TikTok LLC, which is incorporated in Delaware and based in LA, not China. It's incorporated and headquartered in the United States. But TikTok LLC is controlled by TikTok Limited, which is registered in the Cayman Islands and headquartered in Shanghai, China.

And TikTok Limited is controlled by ByteDance, which is based in Beijing and partially owned by its Chinese founder. So to avoid the argument that the TikTok app itself isn't an app controlled by a foreign adversary since its direct owner is incorporated and based in the United States, the law specifically noted that a foreign adversary controlled applications app is an app controlled by a foreign adversary or ByteDance or TikTok. All right. So TikTok and ByteDance bring this case to federal court in DC.

And they challenge the law arguing that it violates their first amendment rights. The appeals court rejects that argument and ultimately finds that Congress had done its due diligence and that, and I quote, "'This law was the culmination of extensive bipartisan action by Congress and by successive presidents, i.e. Trump and then Biden.

So TikTok and ByteDance lose the case and they take it to the Supreme Court. And now here we are. Again, TikTok and ByteDance are arguing, one, this law violates their first amendment right to free speech. Two, that the law is merely speculative because the U S government has been assured that China isn't taking users' data. And three, that the real reason for the ban is that Congress is concerned that the ideas on the TikTok platform could persuade Americans against the US government, and the US government is trying to avoid that. But as TikTok and ByteDance argued, a pillar of the First Amendment is that the government cannot restrict speech for this reason. The United States, on the other hand, is arguing that the Chinese government's control of TikTok

poses a serious threat to national security and that there is a possibility that the Chinese government could secretly manipulate content on TikTok and that TikTok's data on US users would give the Chinese government a powerful tool for harassment and espionage. Now, in addition to the attorney for TikTok and ByteDance, who we'll call Francisco since that's his last name, and then the attorney for the United States, who we'll call Prelogar since that's her last name, we also heard arguments from an attorney for TikTok users and we'll call him Fisher. Fisher argued that this law directly restricts TikTok users' First Amendment right to participate in a modern public square,

and that is legal language that stems from an old First Amendment case at the Supreme Court, which basically just means that it is a First Amendment violation to take away our right to speak up in public, and that is exactly what this law is doing, according to Fisher. Now, the first hurdle is obviously, do TikTok and ByteDance even have First Amendment rights, given the fact that TikTok Limited and ByteDance are based outside of the US?

If they don't, they don't have a claim here at all. If they do, that's where you have to proceed with this analysis of whether this is a First Amendment violation. And I want to be clear here that this speech TikTok and ByteDance claim is the platform's algorithm. So the argument is that their speech, their algorithm is or their speech is expressed by way of their unique algorithm and the content they choose to show their users. Because the app obviously doesn't have a voice, right? So its definition of speech is a little different.

Justices Thomas Kagan and Barrett all questioned this issue of whether a First Amendment right even exists specifically for TikTok. Justice Thomas wondered how a restriction on ByteDance's ownership of TikTok created any limitations on TikTok speech. Justice Kagan, expressing a similar thought, asked, if the law only targets ByteDance, which does not have any First Amendment rights because it's a foreign corporation, how does that implicate TikTok's First Amendment rights since TikTok can still use whatever algorithm it wants?

ByteDance just has to sell. It has to divest itself of TikTok. And Justice Barrett noted that because the law requires ByteDance to divest TikTok, a shutdown of TikTok would be the consequence of ByteDance's choice not to do so, not necessarily because of the US government or this law. So those were some of the First Amendment concerns. Now, let's assume that TikTok does have a First Amendment right. The court then has to decide whether the law can pass strict scrutiny because a law can infringe on our First Amendment rights

so long as it passes strict scrutiny. Our rights are not absolute. And there are three questions the court has to answer to figure out whether a law passes this level of scrutiny. One, is the law necessary to achieve a compelling government interest? Two, is the law narrowly tailored to achieve that purpose? And three, does the law use the least restrictive means to achieve that purpose? If the court can answer these three questions in the affirmative after hearing all of the arguments, the law can stand despite implicating the First Amendment. So TikTok, ByteDance, and TikTok users argued that even if the government has a compelling interest

in preventing China from secretly manipulating content, this law is not the least restrictive way to handle that interest. Instead, the government could have done something less restrictive, like require TikTok to disclose the possibility of said manipulation to its users or just banned the actual sharing of data. This is an argument that Justice Gorsuch seemed to agree with. He told the attorney for the United States that shutting down the app felt

paternalistic. Justice Kagan took issue with the United States' argument that the law is necessary to achieve its interest in preventing China from secretly manipulating content on TikTok. Because she said, all social media platforms kind of do this. It's not just TikTok. No matter the platform, they all have algorithms. It's this mysterious thing that no one really knows what goes into it. At the same time, it's no secret that China owns TikTok.

So she was not really on board with that argument from the United States. But Kagan also brought up another interesting point, which goes in TikTok's favor. And that is that the Supreme Court previously upheld the free speech rights of communists in an earlier case. She noted that the United States government often targeted the communist party in the US

due to concerns that it was part of a broader communist international movement and even at times took direction from the Soviet Union. But even then, the Supreme Court held in that case that the ties to a foreign adversary were not sufficient to justify restricting communist speech. So Kagan was asking how Prelogar, the attorney for the United States, squares that case or squares this case with that precedent. Other justices though, they seemed a bit more sympathetic to the national security concerns. Justice Kavanaugh noted that if China is using TikTok to access information about millions of US citizens and they could then use that information

in the future to recruit spies or manipulate future US officials, that that would be a huge concern for the future of the country. Kavanaugh similarly remarked on old laws dating back more than 100 years that seek to lock foreign nationals out of ownership of US communications infrastructure, specifically the Radio Act of 1912, which only allows US companies and citizens to obtain a license to operate a radio station. Chief Justice Roberts

asked if we're just supposed to ignore the fact that the ultimate company that controls TikTok is subject to Chinese laws, including the obligation to assist the Chinese government with intelligence work. So look, we can talk about the comments made from the justices all day long, after all these arguments lasted two and a half hours. But the big point here is that it's not clear which way this is going to go. After arguments, I usually have at least some inclination as to where the justices were leaning, what the ultimate decision is going to be,

but I just don't have that same sense here. Because on one hand, the current bench is typically pretty deferential to Congress when it comes to national security concerns, but on the other, the First Amendment is a right that the court really tries to preserve whenever possible. But then, you know, you have these other questions of is this even a free speech case? Is this a right to association case? Or is this a data control case? Which level of scrutiny is the court going to apply? Because there's different levels

depending on whether the court looks at this as a free speech case, as a right to association case, or as a data control case. And then, you know, just because TikTok argued that this is a free speech violation, that doesn't mean the court has to treat it as such. One more thing to make note of here is that the decision may not be so cut and dry.

There is a possibility that the majority of the court either says, yes, the TikTok ban can stand and here's why, or no, the ban cannot stand and here's why. But there's also the possibility that the court doesn't want to make any real decisions on the matter and sort of pushes it aside because keep in mind, Trump has asked the court through a court filing to postpone the effective date of the ban to give him time to come to some sort of resolution with all parties involved once he takes office. The ban currently takes effect one day before his inauguration, so he doesn't have an opportunity to try to work something out unless the court

pushes back the effective date. But in order to push it back, the court has to issue what's called an injunction. And to do that, the court would have to find that TikTok is likely to succeed on the merits of the case. And I don't know if they can say that at this point. So it's a little bit complicated. And as much as I wish I had a clear cut answer for you as to what we can expect, I don't. The court does have an opinion day scheduled for Wednesday. So I'm thinking that's when they'll release the decision. But as always, time will tell. Once that decision comes out,

I will of course dive into the court's rationale and then also what we can expect going forward. Because also, even if the court does uphold the TikTok ban, there's other possible avenues that can be taken to bring TikTok back. But that's not really worth getting into right now. We'll wait until we have a decision and we can talk about all of that stuff then if it's relevant. All right, let's finish with some quick hitters. Staying on the topic of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Metta today in a multi-billion dollar lawsuit accusing it of overcharging advertisers by inflating the number of people

their ads might reach by as much as 400%. The appeals court had previously ruled against Metta, finding that because Metta provided the same alleged misrepresentation about how many people might see the ads, the advertisers could now try to prove their damages and prove that those damages stemmed from what's called a common course of conduct. Those damages, if proven, could exceed $7 billion. And because the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, the appellate court's ruling stands and Metta may be on the hook for billions.

In other lawsuit news, Texas has sued Allstate Insurance Company, accusing it of illegally tracking drivers through their cell phones without their consent and using the data to justify charging more for car insurance. According to the complaint, Allstate allegedly paid mobile app developers millions of dollars to secretly incorporate tracking software and then profited off of that data by using it to raise premiums or deny coverage and by selling it to other insurers. And in an unsurprising but noteworthy move, special counsel Jack Smith announced his resignation from the DOJ in a court filing. And I say this is unsurprising because Trump was planning on firing him anyway once he

took office. And because Smith's cases against Trump are moot at this point now that Trump has been reelected, that's because the DOJ has this longstanding principle that a sitting president can't be prosecuted. As a refresher, Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland in 2022 to lead two federal cases against Trump, which were the Classified Documents case and the Federal Election Interference case. Smith's resignation was noted, though, in a footnote of a recent court filing which read, quote, the special counsel completed his work and submitted

his final confidential report on January 7, 2025 2025 and separated from the department on January 10th." And in some related news, the judge overseeing that classified documents case, Judge Cannon, gave the okay for the DOJ to release volume one of Jack Smith's report on his investigations into Trump. Volume one pertains to Trump's efforts to overturn the election, whereas volume two pertains to the classified documents investigation. Cannon will decide if volume two can be released after a hearing on January 17th.

But in the meantime, volume two has to stay within the DOJ. Attorney General Garland says that volume one will be released before Trump takes office on Monday. In other news, President Biden announced more student debt relief today, this time for more than 150,000 borrowers. The relief will include roughly 85,000 people who attended schools that were found to have cheated and defrauded their students, 61,000 people with a total and permanent disability, and another 6,100 public service workers. Since taking office, the president has forgiven debt for more than 5 million federal student loan borrowers, totaling $183.6 billion

in relief. And as a final note slash quick hitter, keep in mind that Senate confirmation hearings start this week for Trump's cabinet picks. Tomorrow, Trump's nomination for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will sit before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Wednesday, Trump's pick for DHS secretary Kristi Noem will sit before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Also Wednesday, Trump's pick for Secretary of State Marco Rubio will sit before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And then at Trump's pick for Attorney General, Pam Bondi will sit before the Senate Judiciary Committee

starting Wednesday and extending into Thursday. So if anything notable happens there, I will be sure to update you in Thursday's episode. That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. I know today's episode was kind of on the shorter end now that we're doing two days a week, trying to keep the episodes around 40 minutes. So yeah, on Thursday we'll have a little more ground to cover. But as always, I appreciate you. Have a fantastic next couple of days and I will talk to you

on Thursday.