UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (3/31/25): Can a President Serve THREE Terms? Declassified CIA Files Reveal Attempt to Find Ark of the Covenant, Trump Comments on Bombing Iran, and More.

Episode Date: March 31, 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: Utah's New Flag Bill and the Controversy Surrounding It (0:30) NBC Interview with President Trump Sparks Questions: Can a President Serve Three Terms? Why Is Trump "Pissed" at Putin? What About Bombing Iran? (4:03) Declassified CIA Files Reveal Effort to Locate Ark of the Covenant (14:22) Legal Updates: Immigration, Alien Enemies Act, Dismantling of CFPB, DOGE Efforts to Dismantle USAID, and More (19:04) Quick Hitters: Columbia's Interim President Steps Down, Supreme Court Weighs Religious Tax Exemptions, US Soldiers Found Dead in Lithuania, Musk Announces X and xAI Merger, Musk Hands Out $1M Checks Amid WI Supreme Court Race (29:48) SOME GOOD NEWS (33:26) Critical Thinking Segment (35:24) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE WEEKLY NEWSLETTER. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Okay, Martin, let's try one. Remember, big. You got it. The Ford It's a Big Deal event is on. How's that? Uh, a little bigger. The Ford It's a Big Deal event. Nice. Now the offer? Lease a 2025 Escape Active all-wheel drive from 198 bi-weekly at 1.99% APR for 36 months with $27.55 down. Wow, that's like $99 a week.

Yeah, it's a big deal. The Ford It's a Big Deal event. Visit your Toronto area Ford store or Ford.ca today. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Monday, March 31st, and today is my 300th episode. Isn't that crazy? Two and a half years, 300 episodes, we're just getting started. On one hand, it feels like I've been doing this for my entire career.

On the other hand, it feels like I just started six months ago, but either way, I love what I do. I'm so grateful for you, and I am just really excited for the future. With that, let's talk about some news. Let's start by talking about some stateside news out of Utah. So Utah passed a flag bill called HB 77, which some are deeming as controversial. Let's talk about it because I want to make sure we understand what this bill says and why

it's being called controversial. In short, HB 77 bans the display of unauthorized flags on government property and buildings, which includes those on public school grounds. The law also requires the state auditor to impose fines up to $500 per day against those that violate the law. So authorized flags under this law include the American flag, the Utah state flag, flags of other countries, states or cities, US military flags, college flags, or other flags as approved. So political flags supporting a certain candidate or party are not allowed, nor are flags like LGBTQ flags. And that is where the controversy lies. One critic, The Pride

Center, called the bill a deliberate attempt to erase LGBTQIA plus visibility and an example of government overreach, claiming that it removes the ability of cities, counties, and schools to support and affirm diverse communities. One supporter of the law, a group called Utah Parents United, emphasized the law's importance in safeguarding students' rights, saying, quote, "'Our constitution guarantees that every child "'has the right to receive a free "'and nonsectarian education.'"

Now, the bill's sponsors said the bill is meant to encourage political neutrality from teachers and government employees. As for Utah's governor, he actually did not sign the bill, nor did he veto the bill. So he simply let it become law without his signature. And he wrote a letter to lawmakers explaining this decision. And he said that while he supports the underlying intent of the bill, he has serious concerns with other aspects. He wrote, though, you, though because a veto would have been overridden, he did decide to allow the bill go into law without his signature and that he urges lawmakers to consider common sense solutions that address the bill's many flaws.

He wrote, quote, by simply requiring the removal of flags only, there is little preventing countless other displays, posters, signs, drawings, furniture from entering the classroom. To those legislators who support this bill, I'm sure it will not fix what you are trying to fix. The governor also noted that the Utah State Board of Education rather than the legislature

is a better place for these types of politically neutral regulations and that this bill might actually have unintended consequences of increasing alternative political displays. Like for instance, he said using rainbow lights on the side of a building. He also noted that it's important for the LGBTQ community and conservatives to come together to find a solution, something they've been able to do in the past. And he hopes that they're able to do that here as well. So this law is set to take effect on May 7th,

though it will likely face legal challenges. And Utah, by the way, it's had a big month in the news as far as legislation goes. The state also recently enacted a bill which made it the first state to ban fluoride in water, and another bill that made it the first state to require age verification for app store purchases, which is meant to protect minors and give

parents more oversight. In some other news, this story is national. Yesterday, President Trump spoke to NBC's Kristen Welker over the phone, and during that interview, Trump made a few comments that are now making headlines. The first was Trump not ruling out the possibility of a third term as president. Now, unfortunately, I don't have a recording of the phone call to play for you,

so I'll just have to tell you what NBC has reported. In discussing the possibility of a third term, President Trump said, quote, "'A lot of people want me to do it, "'but I mean, I basically tell them them we have a long way to go. You know, it's very early in the administration. End quote. He added that he's focused on the current. And when asked whether he wanted another term, he said, quote, I like working.

When he asked to clarify, he said, I'm not joking, but I'm not. It's far too early to think about it. When asked whether he's been presented with plans to allow him to seek a third term, he said, quote, there are methods which you could do it. When asked about a possible scenario in which Vice President Vance ran for president with President Trump as his vice president, and then, you know, Vice President Vance would pass the role to Trump if and when Vance was elected Trump did say that that is one method, but there are others too. He did not share what those other methods would be

So let's talk about it Can a president run for a third term? No, at least not as of today, right? So the 22nd Amendment which was ratified in 1951 says that a president is limited to two terms which was ratified in 1951, says that a president is limited to two terms. Quote, no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice. End quote. Here's the thing, if we take the language of the amendment literally and we analyze it, it says no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice. So the method that NBC asked about, which was Vice President Vance running at the top of the ticket in 2028 with Trump as his VP

and then Vance handing the office over to Trump once inaugurated, could be a possibility because Trump wouldn't have been technically elected to the office of the president in that scenario. However, as we know, the Supreme Court is heavy on historical tradition and the framers intent. So I would imagine that if this issue presented itself and went before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would say, no, no, no, no, no, based on historical precedent and the framers intent, an individual cannot serve as a president for a third term, regardless of how he gets there. To elaborate on that a bit and to give you some context behind that legal analysis, Franklin D. Roosevelt

is the only president to have served more than two terms. All the other presidents have served two terms max. In fact, President George Washington was the first to set the precedent of two years. He left office in 1796 after serving his president for eight years. Not to, or I should say, sorry, I should say set the precedent of two terms after he left office in 1796. He served a total of eight years. Not to mention the reason the Framers set up the Constitution the way that they did is because they wanted to avoid experiencing the same situation as England where the king reigns for life. And on top of that, you have to consider the fact that the 22nd Amendment was ratified following FDR's four-term stint. So all signs point to the fact that historical tradition and intent, not only the

framers' intent but also lawmakers' intent, would prohibit a president from serving a third term regardless of how he got there. Now, obviously we can't say anything with 100% certainty, but that is my legal analysis based on everything I know about the Supreme Court, how it interprets the Constitution, how it has decided cases in the past. As for the ratification of a new constitutional amendment, which is another possible method and is what would have to happen to essentially undo the 22nd Amendment,

it's virtually impossible. We know that Representative Andy Ogles of Tennessee did propose a constitutional amendment recently to allow for three presidential terms, but let's talk about what would have to happen for that constitutional amendment to be ratified. Not only would two thirds of both the House and the Senate need to be on board,

but also three fourths of state legislatures would need to ratify the change. So that's 38 states. It's virtually impossible with the way Congress and these states are politically split. That's why there have been more than 11,000 constitutional amendments proposed and only 27 ratified, with 10 of those 27 being ratified in 1791 with the Bill of Rights. Put another way, of the 11,000 constitutional amendments that have been proposed, only 17 have been ratified outside the Bill

of Rights. It's incredibly difficult. So the possibility of President Trump serving a third term is very slim. I only say very slim because I would never say never. Now the second storyline coming from this NBC interview surrounds Trump's comments about being pissed off and very angry at Putin. Both of those are quotes. So pissed off and very angry are Putin. Both of those are quotes. So pissed off and very angry are words that Trump himself used. According to NBC, Trump said he was pissed off and angry when Putin criticized the credibility

of Zelensky's leadership of Ukraine. Basically, Putin called for a transitional government to be put in place in Ukraine, which would effectively push out Zelensky. A little background there, Zelensky was elected in 2019 for a five-year term, which would have ended in 2024. But in 2022, after Russia invaded, Ukraine declared martial law, which meant that there would be no election until the declaration of martial law was lifted.

This is where Putin's comments are likely stemming from, either that or he just doesn't think Zelensky is the right leader. Either way, Trump said Putin's comments were quote, not going in the right direction and said quote, if Russia and I are unable to make a deal on stopping the bloodshed in Ukraine, and if I think it was Russia's fault, which it might not be, but if I think it was Russia's fault, I'm going to put secondary tariffs on oil, on all oil coming out of Russia. That would be that if you buy oil from Russia,

you cannot do business in the United States. There would be a 25% tariff on all oil, a 25 to 50 point tariff on all oil." Keep in mind, President Biden had banned Russian oil import in 2022 after Russia invaded Ukraine. Since then, the amount of Russian oil imported in the United States has gone down drastically. In 2023, only 10,000 barrels of Russian oil and petroleum products were imported into the United States. So these secondary tariffs that Trump is talking about would apply to other countries that buy oil from Russia, like China, Turkey, Brazil, India. That's why they're called secondary tariffs. We wouldn't be imposing tariffs on Russia directly,

but rather on the countries that buy oil from Russia, which would in theory deter those countries from purchasing Russian oil and essentially punish Russia. So it's basically another way to punish Russia since we've already banned Russian oil imports. The third and final storyline coming from this NBC interview stems from Trump's comments that he would bomb Iran if they don't accept a new nuclear deal. Later in the day, after this interview came out, Iran's president rejected

the attempt for negotiations for a new deal but left open the possibility of indirect talks. So President Trump had previously sent a letter to Iran's supreme leader urging him to negotiate a new nuclear deal to provide a bit of context here. In 2015 during the Obama administration the United States entered a nuclear deal with Iran joined by other countries like China, France, Germany, Russia, the UK, and the European Union. The deal reached was a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the Iran Nuclear Agreement, and it was designed to ensure that Iran's nuclear program would be exclusively peaceful by placing strict limits on Iran's nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. In 2018, during Trump's first administration, the US withdrew from this agreement,

and since then, Iran has exceeded the nuclear limits that were part of that previous deal. Over the last four years or so, Iran's nuclear program has advanced substantially. Consequently, Trump is now trying to create a new nuclear deal with Iran that's more in line with his objectives. And that's why we are here. Earlier this month, on March 12th, Trump's letter arrived in Tehran, which is the capital of Iran. We don't know exactly what that letter said, but Trump has said in an interview that he wrote the letter saying, basically, quote, I hope you're going to negotiate because if we have to go in militarily, it's going to be a terrible thing. Yesterday in Trump's interview with Kristen Welker, Trump said, quote, if they don't make

a deal, there will be bombing. It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before. So that got people talking. Then yesterday afternoon, Iran's president rejected Trump's letter, but like I said, left open the possibility of indirect talks. Keep in mind in Iran, there is both a president and a supreme leader. The president is the highest elected official,

but the president still answers to the supreme leader. Iran's president said Sunday, direct negotiations have been rejected, but regarding indirect talks, Iran has always been involved in such talks and the Supreme Leader has emphasized that indirect talks can still continue. End quote. Following Trump's comments about bombing, Iran submitted an official warning note to the U.S. Interest Protection Office, which warned against any malicious acts and Iran's supreme leader said today

that it would respond decisively and immediately to any threat issued by the United States. So that is where we're at on that front. And those are sort of the three main storylines coming from that NBC interview. A lot of you wrote into me yesterday asking me to kind of talk about those and provide some context and clarity. So there is that. Let's take our first break here and I will be right back. Welcome back. Declassified CIA files have unearthed a 1988 effort called Project Sunstreak, which tried to relocate the Ark of the Covenant using what are called remote viewers. The Ark of the Covenant

is the ancient sacred chest said to have held the Ten Commandments. So the Hebrew Bible says the Ark of the Covenant was built under Moses's direction and it was kept in the inner sanctuary of the temple in Jerusalem but disappeared after the Babylonian conquest in 586 BCE and has not been found since. So essentially what we've learned from these files is that the CIA trained subjects in extrasensory perception with the goal of the subjects being able to gather information about far away objects based only on coordinates.

So we're talking about almost like psychic abilities, right? When I say extrasensory perception, I mean experiencing things by means other than sight, touch, taste, etc. This perception is done by telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, or in other words, predicting the future. Now, it's also worth noting that experts familiar with this program, including US Army Chief Warrant Officer Joe McMonigal, have warned against interpreting this CIA session as proof of the ARC's existence. So we'll talk about what the subject reported is in a second, but McMonigal says he was

one of the original remote viewers in early experiments and that the 1988 session appeared to be just a training exercise. So its content is unverifiable. Obviously, we all have our own minds. We can attribute as much accuracy to this as we see fit. It's pretty subjective. But one thing that's not subjective is the fact that the CIA actually worked on this project.

So that's really what I wanna talk about. I wanna talk about what the report says. I'm not here to tell you whether it's believable or not. You can, you know, that's your deal. In one session, the CIA gave a subject only coordinates. This subject was identified as remote viewer number 32. The session took place on December 5th, 1988, between 9.15 and 10.45.

The mission, according to these files, was to quote, access and describe the target identified by coordinate 781410-110-121." So here is the session summary, and I'm reading directly from the CIA notes. Quote, Target is a container. This container has another container inside of it. The Target is fashioned of wood, gold, and silver. The Target is similar in shape to a coffin, and is decorated with seraphim, which are celestial beings. The Target is located somewhere in the Middle East, as the language spoken by individuals present seem to be Arabic. Visuals of surrounding buildings

indicated the presence of mosque domes. This has a question mark next to it. Individuals in the area were clothed in virtually all white, had black hair, dark eyes. One figure I homed in on wore a mustache. The target is hidden. Underground, dark and wet were all aspects of the location of the target. The purpose of the target is to bring people together. It has something to do with ceremony, memory, homage, the resurrection.

There is an aspect of spirituality, information, lessons, and historical knowledge far beyond what we know. The target is protected by entities, see page 14, and can only be opened by those who are authorized to do so. This container will not and cannot be opened until the time is deemed correct. Once it is time to open the container, the mechanics of the lock system will be found to be fairly simple. Individuals opening the container by prying or striking are destroyed by the container's protectors through the use of a power unknown to us. See page 17." So basically that summary, that report summary that I just read you was the recording of the findings by this remote viewer. So the remote viewer is using these extra

sensory perceptions to sort of relay everything that they're seeing and experiencing in these visions. And then someone in the CIA is recording exactly what that remote viewer is saying. So that is the report. In total, the file is about 19 pages. The first two pages summarize the project. The remaining 17 pages consists of various drawings and jotted down words.

I do, of course, have that document linked for you in the sources section of the episode, which you can always find by clicking the sources link in each episode description, including this one. For this next segment, I want to talk about some updates out of the courts. As we know, the Trump administration has faced multiple lawsuits over its many actions that it's taken since January 20th. And over the last four days or so, there have been updates in multiple cases. So I just figured we would do them as part of one segment.

Starting with the Alien Enemies Act case. As we've talked about, President Trump signed an executive order invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport Trendy Aragwa gang members. The Alien Enemies Act essentially says that a president can detain or deport citizens of an enemy nation without a hearing when either Congress has declared war or an invasion has taken place. The Trump administration's position is that

the Trende Aragwa gang has invaded the United States and therefore members of the gang are subject to deportation under the Alien Enemies Act. However, the administration was sued and accused of exceeding its authority under the law. Now, this is the case where we've seen the back and forth between the administration and the judge, right? The administration sent those deportation flights to El Salvador the same day that the judge said the administration couldn't do that. Notably, two of those three flights took off before the judge's order was issued, one took off after. But nonetheless, it has caused a bit of a legal battle.

Ultimately, the judge's ruling said that while this litigation is pending and until a final decision on the merits of this case is made, the administration cannot deport gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. Following that ruling, the administration appealed, and the appellate court voted 2-1 to uphold the lower court's ruling. The update in this case, though, is that the administration has now gone to the Supreme Court, asking it to lift the judge's order and allow it to continue deporting gang members under this law. So the Supreme Court will have to decide whether the president can lawfully use his authority under the Alien Enemies Act to deport Trendy Aragaw gang members

while this litigation is pending. In the past, the Supreme Court has held that detentions and removals under the Alien Enemies Act are quote, so bound up with national security judgments that courts generally cannot weigh in on these matters per their jurisdiction under the constitution. However, we will have to see what the court decides to do with this one.

The lawyers for the plaintiffs have been directed to file their response to the administration's appeal by tomorrow. So we should see a decision from the justices in the next week or two. Another update, this one from Friday. An appellate court has affirmed Doge's ability to continue issuing cuts to USAID. This ruling overturns an earlier ruling issued by a district court judge which held that the dismantling of USAID by Doge

was likely an illegal overreach of power by an unelected official. So that earlier ruling, which I had reported on when it was issued, said that it is likely once arguments are heard and a final decision is made on the merits, that the court will find Musk's actions with Doge violated the Constitution and therefore the judge issued a temporary block on the actions that Musk and Doge were allowed to take with USAID while the litigation played out. Doge appealed this decision and on Friday, a unanimous appellate court found that Musk likely did not use excessive power as an unelected official in violation of the Constitution because of the fact that the cuts had largely been instigated by President Trump and his administration. Two of the three judge panel overturned, or I should say two of the judges on the three judge panel overturned the

lower courts ruling with full support, with one writing, quote, while the defendant's role in actions related to USAID are not conventional, unconventional does not necessarily equal unconstitutional, end quote. That third judge, however, the third judge on the three-judge panel, wrote that he believes Musk's actions likely do violate the Appointments Clause of the Constitution because Musk has not been appointed. However, he ultimately agreed to overturn the lower courts ruling because he felt that the USAID employees wrongly sued Musk and Doge when they should have sued the federal government. Now the plaintiffs here of course can

appeal the appellate court's decision. They can appeal to the Supreme Court, but for now this decision means that DoJ can continue with its actions pertaining to USAID. On a related note, though, I do also want to mention that Secretary of State Marco Rubio did officially announce the dismantling of USAID. So Rubio issued a formal notification to Congress that the State Department plans to reorganize the agency and fold the agency's independent functions into the State Department by July 1st. In another legal update, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration, blocking it from deporting migrants to countries that they did not previously have ties to without first giving them an appropriate

legal basis to claim that they would face danger if they were sent there. So this one stems from the administration saying it would deport any migrants illegally in the US to El Salvador after ICE was given a directive that said migrants could be removed to a third country with which they do not have ties. A group of migrants represented by advocacy groups then sued the administration, arguing that this policy exposes them to potential dangers in other countries without giving them an opportunity to

appeal their deportation orders. Friday's ruling out of the court says that the administration cannot deport migrants to any country other than the one designated in their immigration proceedings, meaning any country other than the one they came from, unless and until they provide that migrant and their lawyer with written notice and a reasonable opportunity to object to the deportation. Now this decision is in part because of the Convention Against Torture, which was ratified by Congress in 1994, and it says that migrants cannot be sent to any country where they face a reasonable threat of danger and likelihood of torture.

Actually achieving comprehensive protection under the Convention Against Torture is hard because applicants have to prove that it's more likely than not that they would face harm, but what this does is it slows the deportation process by giving migrants the opportunity to object. The administration, like all the other cases we've talked about, can appeal this court order, but for now, the order remains in effect until a more permanent order is issued by the court. In another case, a federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from dismantling the

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The court held that there is a substantial risk that the administration will complete the destruction of the agency in violation of law well before the court can rule on the merits of the case, and therefore it issued this temporary block on the administration's ability to continue its dismantling efforts. A little background here, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB, was created by Congress in 2008 after the financial crisis, and the intent was to protect consumers and economic turmoil. So, part of the CFPB's responsibility includes regulating lending activity, like credit cards and mortgages. However, the CFPB has faced

opposition since its creation, with oppositionists arguing that it overimposes regulations on finance and innovation. Since Trump took office in January, thousands of CFPB employees have been fired, the remaining employees have been ordered to stop working, offices have been closed and contracts have been canceled. Naturally, as we've seen with many other administrative actions, lawsuits were filed challenging these actions to dismantle the CFPB.

So in Friday's decision, which like most of these other decisions we're talking about is a temporary one, the court held that it was likely that only Congress could terminate the CFPB because it was Congress that created it. Of course, the court still needs to issue a final decision on the merits of the case once it hears arguments, but for now, the administration is blocked from taking any more actions to close the CFPB, unless of course the administration appeals

this order and gets the order overturned. Let's take our second and final break here. When I come back, I will touch on one more legal update and then we'll get to quick hitters, some good news, and the critical thinking segment. Welcome back. One more legal update for you. A court has blocked one of Trump's executive orders, which strips a law firm of its security clearance.

The judge found that the administration failed to answer how the attorneys targeted by the order threatens national security in a way that would cause their protections to be stripped. Importantly, this ruling only applies to one law firm, though Trump has issued various orders targeting multiple law firms, but we'll get into that in a minute. DC District Judge John Bates said that Trump's executive order pertaining to law firm Jenner and Block was both troubling and disturbing because it targeted First Amendment rights of the law firms and their employees in addition to their rights to receive due process. The judge wrote that the order demonstrated, quote, retaliatory actions based on perceived

viewpoints, and that there is no doubt that this retaliatory action chills speech and legal advocacy or that it qualifies as a constitutional harm. End quote. As I mentioned, President Trump signed multiple orders targeting various law firms for various reasons. For instance, the order against Jenner and Block was because the firm rehired a lawyer that was previously involved in the Mueller investigation. The order against Covington and Burling was because Covington and Burling helped special counsel Jack Smith during his time as special counsel. Other law firms like Perkins Coy and Wilmer Hale also had their security clearances revoked for other reasons. However, some law firms have actually reached agreements with the administration

to hold on to these security clearances. So one firm reached a deal to provide $100 million in basically free, it's called pro bono, but free legal work to the administration. Another firm offered $40 million in free legal services. And then other firms like, you know, Jenner and Block, obviously, received court orders that block the administration from targeting them. So those are the court updates that I have for you. Now let's run through some quick hitters. Columbia's interim president, Katrina Armstrong, stepped down from her position on Friday, just one week after the university reached a deal with the Trump administration to discuss

its federal funding. A couple of weeks ago, Columbia agreed to a list of requests by the Trump administration to start negotiations to restore $400 million in federal funding after it was accused of not taking enough action to protect Jewish students against anti-Semitism. However, according to Armstrong, her decision to step down had nothing to do with the talks with the administration, but rather that she had only planned to stay in that role for one year before returning to the medical center.

Claire Shipman, co-chair of the Board of Trustees, has been named Acting President. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case today centered around religious tax exemptions. Specifically, this case centers around a tax dispute between the state of Wisconsin and the Catholic Charities Chapter. The question for the court is whether a state violates the First Amendment's freedom of Religion clause by denying a religious organization an otherwise available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state's criteria for religious behavior. The justices did seem to lean in favor of the Catholic group today, but we will get

a decision in the next month or two. Sadly, the bodies of three missing U.S. soldiers have been found in Lithuania after the vehicle they were traveling in was found submerged in a muddy swamp. At this time, one soldier remains missing and the search is ongoing. The team of soldiers had been missing for six days

after taking part in military drills and an armored vehicle designed to recover damaged tanks and other vehicles from battlefields. They were conducting a mission to repair and tow in a mobilized tactical vehicle when their own vehicle was submerged. Two quick hitters related to Elon Musk. The first is that he announced a merger between his two companies X and XAI. He wrote that XAI had acquired X in an all-stock transaction. He wrote, quote, the combination values XAI

at 80 billion and X at 33 billion. He wrote that the merger will unlock immense potential by blending XAI's advanced AI capability and expertise with X's massive reach. Musk also made some news on Sunday by giving out $1 million checks to two Wisconsin voters. These payouts come as Wisconsin voters get ready to vote on a state Supreme Court seat tomorrow.

Essentially, the race will decide whether conservatives or liberals control the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the liberal candidate has received millions in support from people like George Soros, the governor of Illinois, a Wisconsin philanthropist, and others. Spending on both sides of this effort is expected to reach $100 million, which will be the most expensive state judge race ever. I feel like it's worth mentioning here that Supreme Court races are nonpartisan because judges and justices are supposed to be nonpartisan. But that doesn't mean that judges and justices are not described as either liberal or conservative, because they are.

We know that of our nine US Supreme Court justices, six lean conservative, three lean liberal. This particular race in Wisconsin, though, will replace one of the four liberal-leaning justices on the seven judge court for a ten-year term. So if the liberal candidate wins, the state court will remain majority liberal, but if the conservative candidate wins, the state court will become majority conservative. Let's talk about some good news. For this next segment, I figured why not include some good news. It's

something I used to do weekly. Now I kind of just throw it in whenever I see fit really, but we'll cover a couple of positive news stories and then we'll finish with the critical thinking segment. Retired military dog Frankie has been adopted by his former military handler after four years apart. Army Staff Sergeant Kristen Vander Zanden worked with Frankie for four and a half years, including a nine-month combat tour in Afghanistan and a ten-month combat tour in Iraq. Together, they completed around 20 Secret Service missions to help protect high-profile figures, including the President, Vice President, First Lady, and others. However, when Kristen was relocated to Fort Drum in 2021, the two were separated.

Frankie later retired after six years in the service and was sent to the American Humane Society, who ultimately helped reunite Frankie with Kristen after Kristen reached out asking to adopt him. The American Humane Society covered all transportation costs associated with reunification, and because of Frankie's service to the country, his unit, and Kristen, Frankie gets free veterinary care for life. In some other good news, new research suggests that the installment of safety nets on the Golden Gate Bridge has led to a 73% reduction in suicides. Before the installation of the nets, there were 2.48 suicides per month on average. During installation, that number fell to 1.83, and post installation, the number is down to 0.67. The research also showed an increase in third-party

interventions to prevent suicides. Prior to the installation, there were 8.2 interventions per month compared to 14.42 interventions during installation and 11 interventions per month post installation. These nets are made with stainless steel and they're installed 20 feet below sidewalks and extend out about 20 feet as well. For today's critical thinking segment, let's revisit the three term discussion.

Remember, this segment is not meant to be too complex. It is simply an exercise for our brain so we continue to think for ourselves despite being constantly told how and what to be too complex. It is simply an exercise for our brain, so we continue to think for ourselves, despite being constantly told how and what to think by others. Of course, we always start with our initial thoughts. So we start by assessing our initial feelings about the situation.

How does this make you feel? Expanding the presidential term limit to three years. Do your feelings differ based on the person? Would you feel differently if this was President Biden versus all this talk being about President Trump and why or why not? That why is the most important part of this. We need to check in with ourselves

and figure out why we feel a certain way. Now, if you tend to lean in favor of a president serving three terms, where does the ceiling get, or I should say, where does the line get drawn for you? Is it a fourth term? Should presidents be capped at a fifth term? Should it be unlimited?

Where would you draw the line and why? If you're opposed to a third term, I want you to consider the scenario in which term limits could be modified with certain legal safeguards in place. In other words, is there a way to allow exceptions to the two-term limit without risking abuse of power? What would that look like and why? That is what I have for you today. I hope you have a fantastic next couple of days and I will talk to you again on Thursday.