UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (1/21/25): President Trump's Day One Actions; Biden Pardons Living Siblings, Spouses, Dr. Fauci, and Others; Elon's Controversial Gesture; What's Going on with TikTok; and More.

Episode Date: January 21, 2025

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: Supreme Court Upholds TikTok Divest-or-Ban Law; TikTok Goes Dark for 12 Hours; Trump Extends Ban Deadline (0:33) Biden Issues Final Day Pardons and Commutations Including His Siblings, Their Spouses, Dr. Fauci, and Others (11:31) Inauguration Day; Why Wasn't Trump's Hand on the Bible; Why Were Flags Flown at Full Staff; Elon Musk's Controversial Gesture (17:06) DOGE Sued in Four Lawsuits on Inauguration Day (24:17) President Trump's Signs Almost 100 Actions on Day One (26:53) Quick Hitters: Sen. Marco Rubio Confirmed, Apple Disables AI Feature After Misleading News Headlines, Two Arrested for Posing as Firefighters in Pacific Palisades, US Border Patrol Agent Shot and Killed at US-Canada Border (41:10) Critical Thinking Segment (42:56) 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

Air Transat presents two friends traveling in Europe for the first time and feeling some pretty big emotions. This coffee is so good! How do they make it so rich and tasty? Those paintings we saw today weren't prints. They were the actual paintings. I have never seen tomatoes like this. How are they so red? With flight deals starting at just $589, it's time for you to see what Europe has to offer. Don't worry, you can handle it. Visit airtransat.com for details, conditions apply. Air Transat. Travel moves us.

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased. Today is Tuesday, January 21st. A lot is happening. So let's talk about some news between President Trump's inauguration, Biden's preemptive pardons, the TikTok ban, and everything in between. There is a lot to cover. So just so we're all on the same page, we will go in chronological order throughout this episode. And whatever we don't get to in today's episode, I will try to get to on Thursday.

So let's start with the TikTok ban and the Supreme Court's Friday decision. If you were able to catch my videos on social media on Friday, both on Instagram and TikTok, you may be caught up as to what the Supreme Court ultimately decided to do with the divest or ban law. But let's talk about it here too. So the Supreme Court upheld the law, right?

And I know the immediate question here is, well then why is TikTok still up and running? And we'll get there, I promise. We just first need to address the court's decision. What the justices said, and mind you, this was a unanimous decision. And what they said is, yes, the law implicates first amendment protections,

but national security is more important in this particular case. I'm going to try to make this explanation as simple as possible because I know when I did post the explanation to social media, some people were still quite confused. But to understand the ruling, we really do kind of have to sit down in a first year constitutional law class just for a minute. So put your thinking caps on for a second, we'll get through this together.

Whenever Congress enacts a law that places restrictions on our First Amendment rights, and the court has to determine whether that law violates our First Amendment rights, the court applies a particular level of scrutiny to that law. Scrutiny being a level of examination. So scrutiny is to scrutinize, right? To keep things simple,

if a law targets speech based on its content, so maybe a law says that a person cannot talk or people cannot talk about communism, this would be a content-based restriction because it's particularly focused on the communism messaging specifically. In this case, that law would be entitled to the highest level of scrutiny, meaning Congress gets the least amount of deference.

It's harder for a law to be upheld at the highest level of scrutiny. However, if a law targets speech unrelated to the content or messaging of the speech, it's entitled to a medium level of scrutiny. An example of a content neutral restriction would be a hypothetical law that says people cannot protest outside of the Capitol building while Congress is in session. That's not restricting the content of the speech. It's just restricting the time, place, and manner of the speech. So the Supreme Court first had to determine whether this divest or ban law was a content-based restriction or a content-neutral restriction. Ultimately, it held that it was a content-neutral restriction because it doesn't restrict

a certain type of speech on the app, but rather all speech on the TikTok platform. So once it made that determination, it applied intermediate scrutiny, the middle level of scrutiny, to figure out whether the law was a constitutional restriction on free speech. And when the court applies intermediate scrutiny, it asks the following questions. One, does the government have an important government interest in enacting the law? And two, if so, is the law more broad than necessary to further that interest? If the government has an important government interest and the law is not more broad than necessary to further that interest, the law can stand.

And that's what happened here. The unanimous court found that the government has an important government interest in preventing the Chinese government from accessing the data of US users, and that the law was not more broad than necessary because it gave TikTok an opportunity to divest. The justices implied that had the law not included that divester clause, it may have been too broad and possibly wouldn't have withstood a constitutional challenge, but obviously that wasn't the case here. And I know a lot of people were wondering what kind of data the United States is afraid of the Chinese government having access to because TikTok,

you know, it's mostly cooking videos, get ready with me, dancing videos, whatever it might be. But the particular scenario the justices cited to in their opinion was the Chinese government having access to our contact lists. And if some of us have federal officials in our contact list, or if a federal employee's child is on TikTok and therefore provides their phone data to TikTok, that could potentially be a national security risk. There's also the fact too that when we sign up for TikTok, we allow TikTok to track our keystrokes on our phones. Now, I do also want to shed a bit of light

on the other side of this issue because there are many TikTok users and many Americans that feel as if the United States government isn't actually worried about the Chinese government having access to our data, but rather that the US government doesn't want China to have the ability to sway our opinions about the US government in a negative way. For instance, if someone makes a post about something bad in the United States that the United States government is doing, ByteDance's proprietary algorithm can push that particular content to millions and millions of Americans. So many think that the United States government is using this excuse of a national security concern when really it just doesn't like the

idea of another government being able to push propaganda and potentially turn Americans away from their own government. So that's the thought process on the other side of things. And that's actually something that TikTok's attorney argued before the Supreme Court, but the justices didn't really buy into that. Okay. So now we know that the law was upheld, but why is TikTok still available? A couple of important things to keep in mind here. Number one, the Supreme Court's role is to interpret the law,

to determine whether laws can stand or cannot stand, to determine whether our constitutional rights have been infringed upon. However, the Supreme Court does not tell other branches of government that they have to enforce a law if that law is found to be constitutional. Along similar lines, Congress can repeal a law even if the Supreme Court finds it to be constitutional. A president can instruct his Department of Justice not to enforce a law even after the Supreme Court finds it to be constitutional. The second thing to keep in mind here is that this law specifically gave the Department of Justice the power to monetarily punish app stores for offering the TikTok app. The law does not punish China.

It punishes app stores, app stores like Google Play and Apple's App Store. What the law says is that if an app store continues to offer a banned app, the app store will be monetarily fined for each user that has access to the app. Consequently, if the DOJ tells app stores that it won't be enforcing the law, per the president's request, then app stores can still offer the app without being fined. So that's one avenue for TikTok to remain available in the United States. The president tells the DOJ not to enforce the law. The DOJ then tells app stores they're free to keep the app available without punishment.

However, it's ultimately up to the app stores whether they continue offering that app per that guidance or whether they decide not to take the risk and they just take the app off of their stores. Because keep in mind, President Trump can say at any time, okay, DOJ, start enforcing the law now. Maybe China acted up. Let, start enforcing the law now. Maybe China acted up. Let's let's start enforcing the law. And in that case, the app stores maybe don't want to be caught in a frenzy.

The other thing to note, though, is that TikTok can voluntarily make the app unavailable even if the United States government isn't going to enforce the ban. And we saw this happen for roughly 12 hours on Saturday night into Sunday morning. And then finally, the third thing I want to say here is that the law gives the president, whoever is in office, whether it was Biden on Sunday or Trump on Monday, the power to issue a 90-day extension of the ban via an executive order if ByteDance, TikTok's Chinese parent company, makes moves to divest. So with those things in mind, let's run through a quick timeline of what happened.

On Friday, the Supreme Court releases that decision that we just talked about. That was two days before the ban was set to take effect. On Saturday, TikTok CEO asked then President Biden for assurances that he wouldn't enforce the ban. Biden wouldn't give those insurances. He instead punted the issue to Trump since Trump was set to take office in a matter of days.

Because TikTok CEO didn't get those insurances from Biden, TikTok voluntarily went offline for US users on Saturday night around 10.30 PM Eastern time, about an hour and a half before the ban was set to take effect. By Sunday morning though, around 11 AM Eastern time, TikTok was back up. And when users opened the app, they were shown a pop-up message that read, thanks for your patience and support. As a result of President Trump's efforts, TikTok is back in the US. Now, many of you had asked me on social media how Trump was able to

do this on Sunday despite having no authority as president on Sunday. And the reality is that he didn't take any presidential actions. It was merely a conversation he had with TikTok CEO, Sho Chu, over the weekend that ultimately made Chu decide to turn the lights back on at TikTok. Also remember, Biden punted to Trump, which signaled that although Biden wasn't going to give Chu the reassurance that he was looking for, he also wasn't necessarily going to enforce the law. Now, we don't know what happened behind the scenes between Trump and Chu. We can imagine Trump gave Chu some sort of reassurance that the ban wouldn't be enforced, right? Trump did write on True Social on Sunday in part, quote, I will issue an executive order on Monday to extend the period of time before the law's prohibitions take effect so that we can make a deal to protect our national security.

The order will also confirm that there will be no liability for any company that helped keep TikTok from going dark before my order." So what this tells us is that Trump will use that 90-day extension authority, and he did on Monday, provided for in the law. And in the meantime, he's going to try to work on a deal, whether it be with Congress, TikTok, outside investors, or a combination of the three, which will allow TikTok to operate in the United States, but at the same time, prohibit the sharing of data

with the Chinese government. Trump did also give us some insight as to what that deal might look like. He suggested a joint venture between the app's current owners and the United States, where the United States would get 50% ownership. He wrote about that idea in a post to True Social on Sunday.

He also spoke about it at the Make America Great Again rally on Sunday. And he again, when he signed his first executive orders on Monday, talked about it as well. He also said that the US government wouldn't be putting up any money, but that it would be providing approval for the agreement. So as of now, TikTok is still available to US users, but whether it will stick around is something we just don't know right now. It's hard to predict

what will happen in the next couple of months, but as you know, as always, I will keep you updated. Okay, let's move on to President Biden's pardons. So on Monday morning, the day of the inauguration, the White House announced that President Biden had pardoned Mark A. Milley, his former Chief of Joint Chief of Staff, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease and the entire staff of the January 6th Investigating Committee. In a statement, Biden wrote in part, quote, these public servants have served our nation with honor and distinction and do not deserve to be the targets of unjustified and politically motivated prosecutions. So those pardons were announced early Monday morning. Then, as the swearing-in ceremony was taking place in about 15 minutes before Trump took

his oath, so about 11.45am, the White House announced more pardons and one commutation. Specifically, a commutation of Leonard Petlier's life sentence, a full and unconditional pardon for a man named Gerald Lundergon, another full pardon for a man named Ernest Cromartie, and finally, full and unconditional pardons for all of President Biden's living siblings and their spouses. That last set of pardons is obviously what everyone's talking about.

In the announcement on the White House's website, President Biden said the pardons were to protect his family from politically motivated attacks and stated that the pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgement of any wrongdoing. Now, I know a lot of you have a ton of questions as to how this can be done and we will get there, but first I want to lay out a few other facts.

The January 6th investigating committee was specifically pardoned for the time between which it was formed and the time at which it stopped investigating. Dr. Fauci, Mark Milley, Biden's siblings, and their spouses were all pardoned for any offenses they may have committed or taken pardon during the period from January 1, 2014 through yesterday. And you might recognize that January 1, 2014 date as the date that was written on Hunter Biden's pardon as well. When Hunter was granted an unconditional pardon, it was clear that the reason behind Hunter's pardon, or the reason that it began on January 1st, 2014, is because that's when he began working with the foreign entity Burisma, and that's what he's been investigated

for by the House Oversight Committee. So the thought was that if Hunter was pardoned from the time he started that work, he can no longer be subject to any House investigations. Importantly, many people on the right think the investigations were warranted. Many on the left think it was just a witch hunt. But I say this to say that now that Biden pardoned his living siblings and their spouses, no one can be asked to testify about those foreign business dealings and no one is subject to any additional House investigations. And what we know is that recently, House Oversight Chairman James Comer, who's the chairman of the committee that was investigating not only Hunter

Biden's foreign business dealings, but also the impeachment inquiry into President Biden, he came out and accused James Biden, Joe Biden's brother, of lying to Congress during that impeachment inquiry and called on the incoming attorney general to hold him accountable. According to Comer, James Biden allegedly misled Congress about meeting with Hunter Biden's business partner while pursuing a deal with a Chinese energy company. So these pardons by Biden are likely,

one, a result of James Comer asking the incoming attorney general to hold James Biden accountable and to stop the investigations into Biden's family once and for all. So are these types of pardons allowed? They are. These are what are called preemptive pardons. A preemptive pardon is one that's granted before someone is charged with a crime. The authority behind preemptive pardons dates back about 150 years when the Supreme Court held that the presidential pardon power extends to every offense known to the law, so long as the offense is a federal offense and not a state offense, and may be exercised at any point after the commission of a crime, even before any legal action is taken. What that means is a president can pardon someone even if they aren't facing charges. In fact, in the months before Trump left office in 2021, the media was questioning

whether Trump was going to preemptively pardon some of his family members, business partners, and administration officials to protect them from the incoming Biden administration. We know he didn't end up doing that, but this is to say that it's been a topic of conversation for years. So preemptive pardons are certainly a thing. However, because President Biden set a new precedent by issuing these preemptive pardons, blanket preemptive pardons, for people that weren't even subject to any investigations as someone like Hunter Biden was, there is a good chance that the Supreme Court takes a new look at the presidential pardoning power and determines whether this type of pardon is constitutional. And if they do, there's a chance they say that

these kinds of pardons aren't allowed. And we'll touch on this more in the critical thinking segment. But one last question I wanted to answer was whether pardons can be overturned. The answer is no. So yes, preemptive pardons are a thing. Yes, they are allowed. However, this is the first time in history that we've seen these blanket preemptive pardons used in the way that they were used yesterday. That being for individuals who, according to the president, have not committed any crimes. It was not an acknowledgement of any wrongdoing and for individuals that were not subject to any sort of investigations.

All right, let's take our first break here. We still have a lot more to get to, so we'll take a quick break and we'll be right back. Calling all sellers, Salesforce is hiring account executives to join us on the cutting edge of technology. Here, innovation isn't a buzzword, it's a way of life. You'll be solving customer challenges faster with agents, winning with purpose, and showing the world

what AI was meant to be. Let's create the agent-first future together. Head to salesforce.com slash careers to learn more. Okay, welcome back. Let's now talk about the inauguration. On Monday, President Trump was sworn in as the 47th president of the United States. The swearing in happened at 1202 PM Eastern time,

which means, fun fact, for two whole minutes, the United States actually didn't have a president. And I know many of you are probably thinking, what do you mean? President Biden was obviously still president until Trump took the oath, but that's actually not true per the constitution specifically the 20th amendment the terms of the outgoing president and vice president end at noon eastern time on january 20th unless inauguration day falls on a weekend and is therefore pushed to a weekday but

in that case their terms would just end at noon on whatever day Inauguration Day landed on. So for two minutes between 12 o'clock and 1202, we actually didn't have a president. And yes, JD Vance was already sworn in, so the argument could have been made that he would assume the role, but the VP technically only assumes the role of the president if the president is removed or he dies or resigns. And of course, none of those things would have applied in those two minutes. And then there's also the argument of whether Harris would have assumed the role because technically until Trump took the oath, President Biden was still president even though he wasn't

because it was noon. It's an interesting hypothetical to think about. But anyway, let's back up to Saturday when the series of inauguration events kicked off with a cabinet dinner with incoming cabinet members and then after that a fireworks show. Sunday there was a ceremony at Arlington Cemetery, a Make America Great Again rally at Capital One Arena, which included performances by Kid Rock, Billy Ray Cyrus, the Village People, and more, and then a candlelit dinner to end the night. Monday started with a church service, then President Trump had tea with First Lady Melania, outgoing President Biden, and outgoing First Lady Jill. And then tea was followed by the actual swearing-in ceremony, which was moved indoors because of the freezing cold weather.

So let's quickly talk about a couple of things which some of you wrote in to me and wanted some clarification on. First, the American flag's being flown at full staff despite President Carter passing away less than a month ago. According to the US flag code, which is not binding law by the way, when a president dies, the flag is flown at half staff for 30 days thereafter. Obviously, it has not yet been 30 days since Carter's passing, so technically flags were supposed to fly at half-staff, but leading up to the inauguration, governors from at least 28 states had directed flags to be flown at full-staff for the inauguration, and Speaker Johnson ordered the U.S. Capitol to do the same.

Once Trump was sworn in, he similarly ordered flags to be flown at full-staff for Inauguration Day, but then also at the same time ordered flags returned to half staff the day after. So that's why the flags were flown at full staff despite Carter's passing less than 30 days ago. The second inaugural moment you all wanted me to address was Trump's hand not being placed on the Bible while taking the oath of office. This is despite the First Lady holding two Bibles next to him. Many of you wanted to know the rules behind this and the simple answer is that while it's common

for incoming presidents to place their hand on the Bible while taking the oath, it's not a legal requirement. The constitution actually says that all executive and judicial officers shall be bound by oath to support the constitution, but that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification. And while the Bible is not a religious test per se, the clause does signal that a religious test shall ever be required as a qualification. And while the Bible is not a religious test per se,

the clause does signal that a religious component shall not be a requirement when taking the oath. I will say too that the inauguration was a bit rushed because as I kind of spoke about earlier, typically incoming presidents are sworn in by noon Eastern time and Trump swearing in didn't take place until, it didn't start until 1201. So if you're watching, you actually saw Melania walk up with the Bibles shortly after Chief

Justice Roberts had already started the swearing in. And who knows, maybe that played into him not placing his hand on the Bibles, but also maybe Trump just didn't want to place his hand on the Bibles. Either could be true. And then finally, the third inaugural moment I was asked to address was Elon Musk's gesture that resembled a hail Hitler gesture or a symbol of fascism.

To give a little more context, Musk was speaking at the Capital One arena after the inauguration and said, quote, this was a fork in the road of human civilization. This one really mattered. Thank you for making it happen. He then put his right hand to his chest and extended his arm in an upward angle with his palm down and fingers together. He made the same gesture a second time later on during that same speech. And if you're watching on YouTube, I do have a clip playing right now just

because it's obviously a little difficult to give the full context without actually showing you what happened. So did the gesture resemble a Nazi salute? Sure. Was this same gesture used by Europe's fascists in the first half of the 20th century? Yes. Here's what I can tell you about Musk specifically. In response to the Hitler Association, Elon Musk is actually a very vocal supporter of Jewish people. He has said before he considers himself Jewish by association because he has so many Jewish friends. that he considers himself Jewish by association because he has so many Jewish friends. He was actually caught in controversy not too long ago in 2023 when he responded to a post that claimed Jewish people push the same kind of hatred for white people that they claim to want people to stop using against them. Musk responded to this post saying, you have said the actual truth. People called him an

anti-Semite after that. And right after that, he visited Auschwitz. He laid a wreath at the wall of death. He took part in a memorial ceremony. He visited a kibbutz in Israel, which was attacked by Hamas on October 7th. He met with the Israeli president and some of the families of the hostages. He thereafter wore dog tags with the name of those hostages on them. And during that visit, many people accused him of going on a quote unquote redemption tour to make up for his post on X. But Musk himself tweeted, actions speak louder than words. Furthermore, the ADL or Anti-Defamation League, which is an antisemitism watchdog and has been very critical over Musk's allowance of antisemitic content on the X platform, actually came to Musk's defense following the Inauguration Day gesture.

The ADL wrote in part, quote, This is a delicate moment. It's a new day, and yet so many are on edge. Our politics are inflamed and social media only adds to the anxiety. It seems that Elon Musk made an awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm, not a Nazi salute, but again, we appreciate that people are on edge. In this moment, all sides should give one another a bit of grace, perhaps even the benefit of the doubt, and take a breath. This is a new beginning. Let's hope for healing and work toward unity in the months and years ahead." Elon Musk responded to that post by writing, Thanks guys with a laughing emoji.

And then he also addressed the criticism directly in his own post on X writing, frankly, they need better dirty tricks. The everyone is Hitler is so tired. As for the fascist association, quite frankly, I don't know if Musk's gesture was intended to be a symbol of fascism. Some think it was, others think it's a dramatic conclusion, but that's what I can tell you. For this next story, we'll stay on the topic of Elon Musk and the new Trump administration. Within minutes of the inauguration, DOJ, the newly created Department of Government Efficiency,

was sued in at least four different lawsuits. Remember, DOJ is a non-federal advisory agency that Trump has now created as of yesterday, and it's meant to cut government waste and spending. In other words, DOJ will advise the federal government, specifically the Office of Management and Budget, as to how to save money. The lawsuit, though, alleges that Doge violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act by giving private individuals roles in the government decision process without the public access that the law requires. So let's break that down. In 1972, Congress enacted a law known as the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which in part

was meant to prevent advisory committees from being dominated by representatives of industry and special interests seeking to advance their own agendas. To do this, Congress created certain requirements for the creation of these committees, and these new lawsuits allege that Doge has not satisfied those requirements. So I'm particularly citing to one of the four lawsuits when I run through these allegations, but here they are. One, Doge hasn't lawfully established itself by meeting with the administrator of GSA. DOJ has failed to provide a clearly defined purpose and other reassurances. It has failed to file a charter. It failed to make its records publicly available, as the Federal Advisory Committee Act requires.

Three, it's not fairly balanced in terms of points of view as required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and four, it violated its non-discretionary duties by failing to take the aforementioned actions. So a couple of things to note here, it's unclear at what point DOJ is or was required to abide by the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. DOJ was technically just created yesterday in one of Trump's executive orders, but we're not sure to what extent DOJ is functioning and therefore whether it was required to do all of these things alleged in the lawsuits against it. However, in that fourth lawsuit filed, the Center for Biological Diversity is asking a federal judge for access to public

records showing how members of DOge have interacted with the White House since the transition began. So if that lawsuit proceeds, then maybe it'll shed a little bit more light into the actions Doge has taken thus far. One last note I want to make while we're on the topic of Doge is that Doge was supposed to be run by both Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, but Ramaswamy has since stepped away so that he can run for governor of Ohio. All right, let's take our second break here. When we come back, we still have a lot more to get to. Welcome back.

We can now talk about day one of Trump's presidency. On day one, President Trump signed almost 100 executive orders and proclamations. Obviously, in the interest of time, we're not going to go over every single thing that he signed, but we can touch on a few. First, we'll discuss some of the executive orders, then we'll talk about the pardons and commutations for January 6th defendants. And I'm going to try to touch on about 14 executive orders, but just note that some explanations may be shorter than others for the sake of time.

For starters, let's just quickly talk about what an executive order is. An executive order directs federal officials, executive departments, or administrative agencies to either act in some way or refrain from acting in some way. Remember, the president is in charge of the executive branch of the government. Therefore, you can think of executive orders as directives for the executive branch, not directives for UNI or American citizens, but rather directives for the executive branch. Furthermore, they do not require congressional approval, but there are ways that executive orders can be blocked or overturned. For one, presidents themselves have the ability to overturn executive orders with new executive orders.

In fact, we saw President Trump overturn 78 of President Biden's executive orders yesterday, which is typical when a new president assumes office. Executive orders can also be overturned by Congress. While executive orders don't require congressional approval to take effect, Congress can overturn them once they're signed. And Congress does this by enacting legislation that invalidates the order. This requires two-thirds of Congress, though, rather than just a simple majority because the president does still have veto power. So Congress can try to invalidate an executive order with a new law, but if the president vetoes that new law, Congress needs to be able to override that veto with two-thirds of both chambers. Now another way Congress can try to prevent an executive orders

implementation is by denying the funds needed to carry out the orders actions. In other words, if an agency needs more money to carry out the president's directives, Congress can opt to not provide that money to that agency. And then the final check on executive orders is the federal courts. Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, can hear challenges to executive orders and block those orders that are found to overstep the president's authority.

So yes, presidents can sign whatever executive orders they want, but they do not go unchecked. All right, so now that we have that foundation laid, let's start off with the ending of birthright citizenship. And note too that this one has already been challenged in court, the lawsuit was filed yesterday. But here's what you need to know. Currently under birthright citizenship. And note too that this one has already been challenged in court, the lawsuit was filed yesterday. But here's what you need to know. Currently under birthright citizenship,

if an individual is born here in the United States, they are entitled to citizenship, even if both of their parents are here unlawfully. What Trump's executive order says is that for someone to be entitled to automatic citizenship when born in the United States, at least one of their parents has to either be a United States citizen or a permanent resident. And that order would take

effect 30 days from yesterday and does not apply retroactively. As I said though, this one has already been challenged and the basis of that challenge is the 14th Amendment, which says that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Furthermore, in 1898, more than 120 years ago, the Supreme Court held that anyone born on US soil is a US citizen. So we'll see what happens with this order, but it's likely at the very least, the order will be temporarily blocked by the courts, which means it would not take effect in 30 days and it would actually be put on hold until the challenge plays out in court. Also, on the topic of immigration, Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border.

He ordered the construction of the wall to begin again, and he shut down the CBP One app, which was an app set up by the Biden administration as a way for people to request asylum appointments instead of crossing over illegally. As of January 7th, roughly 280,000 people were logging on to the app daily to secure appointments at the border, and all of the pending appointments have been canceled. Moving on to the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico and Mount Denali in Alaska. Notably, the U.S. Board of Geographic Names typically has jurisdiction for these geographic names, but presidents have the authority to rename geographic regions and features via executive

order. In fact, it was President Obama who renamed Mount McKinley, Mount Denali via executive order, and now President Trump is changing it back via executive order. A little bit of backstory there. The government named the peak, which is the highest mountain in North America, Mount McKinley, in 1917 to honor President McKinley, but Obama changed it to Mount Denali to honor Alaskan native tribes. So that's the story with that. As for the Gulf of Mexico name change, which Trump has renamed the Gulf of America, that one's a little more complex because it's

a body of water shared by us, Mexico and Cuba, so it's not just ours. So renaming it only affects federal references here in the United States, but other countries are under no obligation to abide by that name change. And now onto the definition of sex. Trump signed an executive order that says it is the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female. The order requires the government use the term sex instead of gender and directs the State Department

and Department of Homeland Security to require that government issued ID documents like passports, visas, and global entry cards reflect the holder's sex. This reverses a 2022 Biden administration order that allowed citizens to use X as a marker on their passports to reflect gender neutral. The order also prevents taxpayer dollars from being used for gender transition health care and ensures single sex spaces in places like prisons and rape shelters are not Designated by gender identity, but rather by sex Saying on the topic of gender Trump also signed an order dismantling DEI within the government

What this will do is remove any position or agency within the various federal departments that were created for the purpose of promoting DEI Trump also signed an order declaring a national energy emergency, which basically gives the government the power to speed up permitting processes here in the United States and will in turn increase energy production at a quicker rate. And speaking of energy and climate, Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord, something he did during his first administration as well. Notably, the Paris agreement does not require countries to cut their emissions, but rather works through peer pressure on an international level,

as well as through countries' domestic laws to encourage them to set their own emissions reduction targets. Now, Trump sees the agreement as putting too much of a burden on the United States compared to other countries. He said that the United States will not sabotage its own industries while China pollutes with impunity. He also wrote in his Monday order that the Paris Accord is among a number of international agreements that don't reflect U.S. values and steer American taxpayer dollars to countries that do not require or merit financial assistance in the interests of the American people. He said that

instead of joining a global agreement, the United States' successful track record of advancing both economic and environmental objectives should be a model for other countries. Former Biden officials, on the other hand, say that by leaving the agreement, the Trump administration abdicated its responsibility to protect the American people and our national security. Notably, the withdrawal process from the Paris Accord takes one year, so this order would not have an immediate effect. Another organization Trump withdrew from is the World Health Organization, something he tried to do during his first administration as well.

He wrote in his order, quote, the United States noticed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization in 2020 due to the organization's mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China and other global health crises, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states. In addition, the WHO continues to demand unfairly onerous payments from the United States far out of proportion with other countries' assessed payments. China, with a population of 1.4 billion, has 300% of the population of the United States, yet contributes

nearly 90% less to the Who." Like the Paris Accord, there is a one-year withdrawal period, so this order will not have an immediate effect either. But notably, roughly one-fifth of the WHO's budget comes from the United States, which is about $1.28 billion. The WHO is responsible for monitoring global health threats and coordinating the response to those threats, evaluating new vaccines and medications, and providing support to various countries. So by withdrawing, the US will lose that support and lose access to the WHO's global data and other resources. Some of Trump's other orders created doge, extended the TikTok ban by 90 days, temporarily froze federal civilian hiring until his administration has taken full effect, required federal departments to start moving

towards eliminating remote work, and ordered the attorney general to review the work of all law enforcement agencies to determine whether any of their moves over the past four years constituted a weaponization of the federal government. Obviously, there were a lot more, right? So I do want to point you in the direction of a few other resources. If you want to read the orders for yourself, which I always recommend as, you know, that's the best thing you can do. Just go direct to the source. You can go to whitehouse.gov and navigate to the briefing room section. You'll find all of them there. If you want a synopsis of all the orders, check out Anna Mattson on TikTok. She's not necessarily unbiased. I mean, few people are, but she created a whole thread which she takes direct quotes from the orders So it's not like there's bias thrown in there

but it's a whole thread which has now been viewed by more than 10 million people and It briefly outlines each order that Trump signed again. That's Anna Mattson on X a NNA M a T s o n Okay. Finally, let's talk about Trump's pardons and commutations to the 1,575 people charged or convicted in connection with January 6th. Most of those defendants had their sentences fully pardoned, but some received commutations rather than full pardons. Here's the difference.

A pardon fully removes a defendant's conviction and sentence and reinstates any rights that they may have lost as a result of that conviction. A commutation, on the other hand, provides a lesser sentence, in some cases like this one cuts the sentence two times served, but doesn't wipe away the conviction completely and doesn't restore any rights lost. Now, at the time that the pardons were issued yesterday, there were about 700 defendants who either never received sentences or had already completed their sentences. And what that means is that the pardons really had

no impact other than removing the charge or charges from their records and restoring any rights lost. So let's first talk about those that received full pardons and break down those numbers a little bit. Of the roughly 1,560 that were fully pardoned, some 400 were convicted of felonies, and this includes some that were convicted of violent offenses like assaulting a police officer. Notably, not all of the offenses were violent. Some of the felonies included obstructing an official proceeding and things of that nature. But a little more than 730 were convicted of misdemeanor offenses like trespassing and disorderly conduct, and then about 300 had not yet been convicted but merely charged.

Some of those 300 had been charged with violent offenses and felony offenses, and others were charged with less serious misdemeanor crimes. Notably, most of the January 6th defendants went into the Capitol, but never attacked anyone or vandalized anything, and most of them have no criminal record. Then there are those that had their sentences commuted rather than pardoned. At the Oval Office signing ceremony, Trump said six people had received commutations, but Trump's actual proclamation lists 14 individuals who received commutations, so we're going to go with 14.

All 14 were either part of the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers, and their charges ranged from seditious conspiracy, which is essentially conspiring to overthrow the government, to obstruction of an official proceeding, to tampering with documents. In sum, these 14 individuals were accused of traveling to DC as part of a group with paramilitary gear and supplies. These supplies included firearms, tactical vests with plates, helmets, and radio equipment. Two of the 14 actually took action outside of just entering the Capitol.

One of them sprayed an officer in the face. He was serving a 15-year sentence. Another smashed a window open in the Senate wing, allowing others to enter the Capitol through that window. He was serving a 10-year sentence. Another smashed a window open in the Senate wing, allowing others to enter the Capitol through that window. He was serving a 10-year sentence. The other 12 were not convicted of violent offenses. So those 14 individuals will have their sentences commuted to time served, which means they will be released from prison, but they will still have their conviction on their record and they will still be treated as felons under the law. What's interesting is that one of the leaders of the Proud Boys received a full pardon rather

than a commutation like the others and that's because he was not present at the Capitol on January 6th. However, despite not being present, he was ultimately convicted of orchestrating the actions of the Proud Boys from afar. So that's the deal with the pardons and commutations. And that just about sums up Trump's actions on day one. One thing Trump didn't do was impose tariffs on goods from China, Mexico and Canada, something he claims will greatly improve the economy. He was originally saying the tariffs would be imposed on day one, along with some of his other measures. But we found out yesterday he instead ordered federal reviews and investigations into trade deficits, alleged unfair trade practices, and purported currency manipulation by other

countries. He signed a memo that directs specific attention to trade deals with China, Canada, and Mexico and whether their terms are being honored. So while we may not see those tariffs imposed yet, Trump did say at his Oval Office signing ceremony that he will impose 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada on February 1st. Alright, now it's time for some quick hitters. The Senate unanimously confirmed Marco Rubio for the position of Secretary of State. This confirmation puts in place the first member of Trump's cabinet and interestingly because Marco Rubio is a senator himself, he was able to cast a vote for himself. In other news, Apple is disabling its AI feature that summarizes news headlines just six months after it launched.

The announcement comes after the AI feature issued a series of inaccurate news headlines. Last month, Apple Intelligence sent out a news alert branded with BBC's logo that incorrectly claimed that Luigi Mangione had shot himself. More recently, the feature incorrectly titled a Washington Post headline, quote, Pete Hegseth fired Trump's tariffs impact inflation. Pam Bondi and Marco Rubio confirmed. None of that was true. Two individuals from Oregon, one man and one woman,

were arrested for posing as firefighters in the Pacific Palisades area this weekend. An LAPD unit was patrolling through evacuation zones when they saw a fire truck that looked illegitimate. They approached the truck and found two people inside wearing fire gear with Cal Fire shirts underneath, helmets and radios. When asked where they were from, the two answered Roaring River Fire Department in Oregon. The police ultimately found out that the man had a previous criminal record of mischief and arson, and the fire truck was impounded and the two were arrested for impersonating firefighters and entering an evacuation zone. And in some tragic news, a US Border Patrol agent was shot and killed Monday afternoon

on a highway in Vermont, close to the US-Canada border. A subject was also killed in the shooting, and another subject was injured and is in custody according to the US-Canada border. A subject was also killed in the shooting and another subject was injured and is in custody according to the FBI. The DHS is currently investigating the incident and says it will release more information as it becomes available. Okay, let's finish with some critical thinking. We are going to revisit the pardoning

of family members for this one. Actually, not even family members, pardoning of those that haven't yet been charged and are not currently the subject of an investigation. So technically, as we discussed, under Supreme Court precedent, the presidential pardoning power applies only to federal crimes

and to crimes that have already been committed, right? That's what the Supreme Court said. Doesn't matter whether charges have been brought, but a pardon can only apply once a crime has been committed. And it's also worth noting that a pardon has to be accepted by the person receiving the pardon to take effect. So this raises the question of, does someone admit guilt when they accept a pardon? It's not entirely clear under the law, but it's something that we can all think about. I'll give you an example of when we've seen this come up in the recent past, actually. So a woman named Dova Winogard is one of the individuals

that was facing charges after January 6th. When her case was in court in December, she brought up the fact that she might actually be pardoned by Trump if he decides to pardon the January 6th defendants once he takes office. And in response to that point, the DOJ said, quote, the defendant would first have to accept the pardon, which necessitates a confession of guilt, end quote.

So Biden's own DOJ set forth that argument. Now on the flip side, when President Biden issued to accept the pardon, which necessitates a confession of guilt." So Biden's own DOJ set forth that argument. Now on the flip side, when President Biden issued the pardons on Monday, he specifically wrote the pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgement of any wrongdoing and in acceptance of the pardon should not be taken as an admission of guilt. But what do you think? Is the acceptance of a pardon, you know, when we look at the Supreme Court precedent in admission of guilt? And to add to that, let's say the Supreme Court ultimately steps in and decides to take another look at the presidential pardoning power. How do you think the

Supreme Court should interpret the power and get creative here? Maybe, you know, maybe for a person to be pardoned, there has to at least be an investigation into that person, or maybe there has to at least be a threat of charges. Or perhaps if a person isn't the subject be an investigation into that person or maybe there has to at least be a threat of charges or perhaps if a person isn't the subject of an investigation and as far as the public is concerned has not yet committed a crime maybe in that case a pardon specifically has to lay out the crime that's being pardoned. So think about it a bit and see what you come up with. So again it's is the acceptance of a pardon an admission of guilt, why or why not, and should the supreme court eventually decide to take a look at the pardoning authority,

how should they rule on that issue? That's what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here as always, and I will talk to you on Thursday.