UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (4/10/25): Trump Pauses Some Tariffs, But Increases China's; PLUS Is Trump Declaring Martial Law Soon? Increased Logging on Public Lands? And More.

Episode Date: April 10, 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 Rules on Alien Enemies Act (0:45) Supreme Court Says Admin Does NOT Have to Reinstate Probationary Employees (8:14) Judge Says White House's Ban on Associated Press is Unconstitutional (12:12) IRS and DHS Reach Data Sharing Agreement for Immigration Enforcement (13:45) Migrants Who Entered Through CBP One App Have Parole Status Revoked (15:57) Trump Pauses Country-Specific Tariffs, Increases Tariff on China (17:48) Elon Musk and Peter Navarro Publicly Feud Over Tariffs (22:54) Quick Hitters: Funding Frozen for Cornell and Northwestern, Inflation Cools, US/Russia Prisoner Swap, Relaunch of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement Office, Trump Signs Water Pressure Order, Texas AG Ken Paxton Announces Run for Senate (26:01) Rumor Has It: Is Trump Declaring Martial Law Soon? Is the Admin Logging on Public Lands? (29:02) Homework Assignment (38:19) ASK THE ADMINISTRATION (CLOSED - Not Accepting Submissions) 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 Thursday, April 10th. Let's talk about some news. Just as a quick heads up, you really should stick around for the end of this episode. I have a pretty cool homework assignment for you, but that is all I will say about that for now. Also, I know that Congress passed a budget resolution today.

Unfortunately, I did have to get this episode out early, so I am not able to cover that in today's episode, but I will try to get to it as soon as I can. If I can't post a separate video about it in the coming days on social media, I will touch on it on Monday's episode. I know that's not ideal, but it's just how things have to go. Okay, let's start today's episode with the latest update in the Alien Enemies Act case.

On Monday night, shortly after the last episode went live, because that's just how things work, the Supreme Court held that the Trump administration can continue to deport suspected gang members under the Alien Enemies Act, but that the deportees must have the opportunity to challenge their removal and to do so, they have to file the challenge as a habeas challenge in the jurisdiction where they are being detained. So let's back up. We've talked about this case a lot. Short summary, President Trump signed a proclamation invoking an old law called the Alien Enemies Act. He invoked the law for the specific purpose of deporting suspected Trendy Aragwa gang members because what the law says is that

the president has the authority to detain or deport citizens of any enemy nation without a hearing when either Congress has declared war or an invasion has taken place. Contrary to the belief of many citizenship status does not matter when it comes to due process. So even if you're in the United States unlawfully you are still entitled to due process which involves a hearing. What the Alien Enemies Act does is it removes that hearing requirement for citizens of enemy nations when the US is either in a war or when an enemy nation has invaded the US. Now, in invoking this act, Trump's argument was that the Venezuelan Trende Aragua gang

has invaded the United States, and therefore he has the authority to deport any suspected Trende Aragua gang member without a hearing. Critics though say no no no no, this is an overreach. The law specifically applies to wars with or invasions by enemy nations and Trende Aragua is not itself a nation nor are we at war with Venezuela so there's no legal justification to deport Venezuelan citizens and or Trende Aragüe gang members. Long story short, a lawsuit ensues. And while this lawsuit is playing out in the very early stages, the president sends three flights of suspected gang members to El

Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. Ultimately, the district court judge issued a temporary restraining order against the administration, which prohibited it from using the Alien Enemies Act. Ultimately, the district court judge issued a temporary restraining order against the administration, which prohibited it from using the Alien Enemies Act for future removals while this lawsuit is playing out. So to be clear, the district court did not issue a final decision as to whether the president has or does not have authority under the Alien Enemies Act. Rather, he said, while I consider this issue further, the administration is barred from carrying out any other removals under this Alien Enemies Act. Nonetheless, the Trump

administration appeals and on appeal in a two-to-one decision, the restraining order was upheld. From there, the administration goes to the Supreme Court. So the question for the Supreme Court was, can the president lawfully use his authority under the Alien Enemies Act to deport Trendy Aragwa gang members while the litigation is pending? And in a 5-4 ruling, the court said yes. Note though, this does not mean the president has lawful authority to do this forever. This means that while the lawsuit is pending, the president can continue deporting suspected gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. Now, if the district court ultimately issues a final decision that says the president does

not have the authority to issue these kinds of removals, the administration can then appeal that decision, and that's when the question would become, does the president have the lawful authority to deport suspected Trende Orogo gang members under the Alien Enemies Act in perpetuity? The justices in issuing their 5-4 decision did not just stop at lifting the restraining order against the administration. The justices also clarified that all deportees are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal, and that the proper way to challenge their removal is by filing a habeas petition in the jurisdiction in which they are detained. A habeas petition is a specific legal pathway to challenging one's detention or imprisonment. The case before the Supreme Court was different because it was filed as a challenge to the actual presidential proclamation. The challenge was that

the presidential proclamation exceeded the president's authority. So what the Supreme Court's ruling means is that this action needs to be refiled by the defendants as a habeas petition, not a challenge to the presidential proclamation, and it has to be refiled in Texas where the deportees are detained, not Washington, D.C., where it was originally filed. Now, I want to note here that this doesn't mean the president's proclamation can't be challenged. It can.

It just has to be a different lawsuit. This lawsuit we're talking about here was potential deportees that were saying they can't be deported because the president exceeded his authority. If this lawsuit is brought by other plaintiffs that are challenging the actual authority of the proclamation, that would be a different case entirely. But this case was challenging the removal of deportees, which the Supreme Court justices said must be done via a habeas petition and it has to be filed in the jurisdiction where the deportees are detained. The dissenting justices included Justice Sotomayor, Justice Jackson, and Barrett and in

writing the dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote in part, quote, critically even the majority today agrees and the federal government now admits that individuals subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act are entitled to adequate notice and judicial review before they can be removed. That should have been the end of the matter. Yet, with bare bones briefing, no argument, and scarce time for reflection, the court announces that legal challenges to an individual's removal under the Alien Enemies Act must be brought in habeas petitions in the district where they are detained.

The court's legal conclusion is suspect. The court intervenes anyway, granting the government extraordinary relief and vacating the district court's order on that basis alone. It does so without mention of the grave harm plaintiffs will face if they are erroneously removed to El Salvador or regard for the government's attempts to subvert the judicial process throughout this litigation. Because the court should not reward the government's efforts to erode the rule of law and discretionary equitable relief, I respectfully dissent." Now, before I move on to the next story, I did want to address two recent rulings out of New York and Texas that were issued following the Supreme Court's ruling and require the Trump administration to again stop deporting suspected gang members under the Alien Enemies Act.

We know that the Supreme Court has the final say on matters. So many of you might be wondering how these two lower courts in New York and Texas can come in after the Supreme Court said deportations were okay and now say deportations are not okay. Well, in short, just to clarify, it's not that the New York and Texas courts are saying deportations are not okay. It's saying that the administration cannot deport any other suspected gang member without first providing notice and an opportunity for them to challenge their removal. Basically just imposing a hold on the administration until it complies with the recent Supreme Court ruling. So I just didn't want you to get confused

in case you saw any headlines about the administration not being able to deport suspected gang members, that's what's going on there. Onto the next story, another one out of the Supreme Court. So remember when the administration fired thousands of probationary employees across various federal departments, I think, what was that? Maybe a couple of months ago now,

following that, various organizations sued the Office of Personnel Management, arguing that the Office of Personnel Management or the OPM exceeded its authority in directing these agencies to terminate probationary employees. So here's the thing. The OPM is basically the HR department for the executive branch. It coordinates the recruiting of new employees,

it manages employees' health insurance and retirement benefits programs, it provides resources for student jobs, scholarships and internships, but it does not hire or fire employees within the government. So the plaintiffs argue that the OPM unlawfully directed these firings, whereas the OPM argues that it simply gave a recommendation to these various agencies to terminate its probationary

employees. At the end of February, after this lawsuit was filed, a judge granted a temporary restraining order against the OPM and later issued a preliminary injunction, which basically meant that the OPM was prohibited from taking similar action in the future and required the reinstatement of the roughly 16,000 probationary employees that had been fired. So after the judge grants that preliminary injunction against the OPM, the OPM appeals the case, it eventually lands in front of the Supreme Court. And the OPM was essentially asking the court to overturn the lower court's order on the basis that the nine nonprofits that filed the lawsuit against it lacked the necessary direct injury to file the lawsuit. So this is what

we call standing. In order to file a lawsuit, you have to have suffered some type of harm by the defendant. So in other words, what the OPM is saying is that the nonprofits didn't directly get hurt by the OPM's actions, so they shouldn't be able to sue. In a seven to two decision, the Supreme Court agreed.

The justices granted the OPM's request to lift that lower court's preliminary injunction against it on the basis that the non-profits' allegations were not a sufficient basis for the original preliminary injunction. Put another way, the justices didn't feel as if the non-profits would suffer immediate harm without the injunction and therefore they couldn't establish a proper basis for the injunction. The effect of this ruling is mainly that the government no longer has to reinstate the 16,000 probationary employees that were laid off. But there's a related case playing out in Maryland where a Maryland judge just ordered 20 federal departments and agencies to

rehire thousands of probationary employees. And when I say just ordered 20 federal departments and agencies to rehire thousands of probationary employees. And when I say just ordered, I mean like just a few days ago. So again, similar to the Alien Enemies Act case, you might wonder how this Maryland ruling is possible if we just got this ruling out of the Supreme Court. And the answer is that the foundation of each case is different and therefore the Supreme Court's ruling does not prohibit the Maryland judge from ordering the reinstatement of probationary employees. In the OPM case, the Supreme Court ruled

the way it did because it felt as if the nonprofits were unable to prove immediate harm. In the Maryland case, the reinstatement order was issued because the judge felt that the federal agencies who actually did the firings, not the OPM, but the federal agencies acted illegally in issuing these terminations by not giving the states advanced warnings of the firings that would ultimately affect various operations within those states. So the underpinnings of the two cases are completely different, and therefore the Maryland Restate Reinstatement Order can stand despite the recent Supreme Court ruling that said the probationary employees don't have to be reinstated.

Alright, one more legal update and then I think we're done with the law. This update will be much shorter than the other two, by the way. So earlier this week, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restore the Associated Press's access to certain White House spaces after it was banned over the outlet's refusal to use Gulf of America. After the AP was banned by the White House from accessing certain areas like the Oval Office and Air Force One, the AP sued the administration and it argued that it has a constitutional right to editorial independence, it can choose what words and phrases it wants to use, and that it was a violation of their First Amendment rights to ban them as a result.

The administration, on the other hand, argued that the AP was not entitled to access to these special areas and therefore they didn't have any constitutional rights infringed upon. Because note that the AP still had access to the press briefing room. What the AP lost access to were these special areas in the White House and on, you know, like Air Force One, two, which isn't technically in the White House, but these are areas that are usually limited to about 13 members of the press. Ultimately, the judge held that the ban on the AP was unconstitutional and that the decision to limit the AP's access violated the outlet's free speech rights.

The judge also noted that the access ban had real-world consequences, like limiting the AP's coverage of a meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskyi. The judge wrote that because the AP couldn't be present for the meeting between the two presidents, the outlet had to use delayed photos from a foreign correspondent that didn't meet its usual standards. Now it is possible that the administration appeals this ruling, but time will tell it could also die out here. Let's take a break and I will be right back. Okay, flights on air Canada. How about Prague?

Ooh, Paris! Those gardens. Gardens? Um, Amsterdam. Tulip Festival. I see your festival and race you a carnival in Venice. Or Bermuda has carnival. Ooh, colorful. You want colorful. Thailand. Lantern Festival.

Boom. Book it. Um, how did we get to Thailand from Prague? Oh right, Prague. Oh boy. Choose from a world of destinations, if you can. Air Canada. Nice travels.

Welcome back. A couple of immigration related stories for you. The IRS and DHS have entered into a memo of understanding which will allow the sharing of certain taxpayer information to aid in immigration enforcement efforts. More specifically, the agreement allows ICE, which is an agency within the DHS, to request specific tax data for individuals that are either subject to final deportation orders or are under criminal investigation. The IRS will then verify the provided names against its records and share relevant information like addresses to help locate these individuals. And just to be clear, a memo of understanding is a formal agreement that outlines

how the multiple agencies will share information or cooperate on specific issues. In this case, the memo includes provisions that ensure compliance with existing privacy laws and mandates that all data-sharing activities adhere to sound administrative practices. Despite these safeguards, the agreement has faced criticism from immigrant advocacy groups and legal experts who argued that it might violate taxpayer confidentiality protections and actually deter undocumented immigrants from filing taxes. Notably, Acting IRS Commissioner Melanie Krauss announced her resignation shortly after this agreement was reached, citing concerns over the implementation of this policy.

So the finalization of this memo has sparked some conversation about Internal Revenue Code Section 6103, which governs the confidentiality of tax return information. The law generally prohibits the IRS from disclosing taxpayer information to anyone, including other government agencies, without the taxpayer's consent. However, there are exceptions, including a criminal investigation exception. So if an individual, let's just say hypothetically, right, because this is all about immigration enforcement, if an individual entered the US illegally, that's a crime, as we've talked about before, and that may fall into this criminal investigation exception. Though it may not, this is something that will likely be challenged in the courts.

So it is something that this is just one of those things that has to kind of like play out for us to see what happens here. But the next immigration related story, the DHS announced the revocation of parole status for some of the 900,000 people that entered the United States using the CBP One app during the Biden administration. So the CBP One app was first launched in January 2023, and it allowed migrants to schedule appointments at lawful ports of entry along the border, which therefore facilitated a legal pathway for asylum seekers to enter the country while also attempting to reduce and disincentivize illegal border crossings. Those that used the app were granted parole status and work authorization for up to two years while they awaited immigration proceedings.

When the when the Trump administration took over the app was shut down temporarily but did end up coming back this time as the CBP Home app. And under the rebrand, migrants could now report their intention to leave the United States. On Monday and into Tuesday and potentially even into later in the week, some individuals who entered the United States via this former CBP One app got an email to their phone and that email notified them that the DHS was exercising its discretion to terminate their parole immediately and that they needed to leave the country unless they've obtained a lawful basis to be here.

The DHS confirmed that it sent formal termination notices, however it did not say how many migrants received them. According to the termination notice, the DHS is encouraging migrants to report their departure via the app, and a DHS spokesperson said that those who refuse will be found, removed, and permanently barred from re-entry. Notably, the parolee is designated under United for Ukraine, which provided legal status for Ukrainians affected by war, and Operation Allies Welcome, which resettled Afghans following the US exit from Afghanistan, won't be affected by this announcement. Alright, now it's time to talk about the tariff situation, the discussion we've all been waiting for.

As you probably know, President Trump announced on Wednesday that there would be a 90-day pause on most tariffs, but that China would see a tariff increase. Now this is interesting because in Monday's episode we talked about CNBC airing unconfirmed information about a potential 90-day tariff pause. The White House subsequently denied the report. The press secretary called reports of a 90-day pause fake news. Two days later, the 90-day pause was officially announced. So let's back up. The last time we talked, the US was getting ready to impose a baseline 10% tariff on all countries and territories and additional country-specific tariffs that the administration calls reciprocal. Well, then the United States and China start to get a little more aggressive with each other. China said it would impose an additional 34% tariff on us because of our new tariffs on them. And then all of a sudden, the tariff on China imposed by us was up to 104%. That 104% tariff went into effect Wednesday at 1201 AM. China then proceeded to impose an 84% tariff on us, which also went into effect

on Wednesday. Wednesday rolls around. President Trump announces that he's pausing all country-specific tariffs for 90 days and increasing the tariff on China to 125%. Trump posted to Truth Social, quote, based on the lack of respect that China has shown to the world's markets, I am hereby raising the tariff charged to China by the United States of America to 125% effective immediately. by the United States of America to 125% effective immediately. At some point, hopefully in the near future, China will understand that the days of ripping off the USA and other countries is no longer sustainable or acceptable. Conversely, and based on the fact that more than 75 countries have called representatives of the United States, including the Departments of Commerce, Treasury, and the US Trade Representative, to negotiate a solution

to the subjects being discussed relative to trade, trade barriers, tariffs, currency manipulation, and non-monetary tariffs, and that these countries have not, at my strong suggestion, retaliated in any way, shape, or form against the United States, I have authorized a 90-day pause and a substantially lowered reciprocal tariff during this period of 10%, also effective immediately. When the president was asked why he made the decision to pause country-specific tariffs, he said that people were, quote, jumping a little bit out of line, end quote, and starting to get, quote, yippy and afraid, end quote.

The president also noted that the pause is in part because none of the countries besides China have retaliated, and many of them have tried to make a deal with the United States. So what does this mean? Well, during the 90-day pause, all countries will face that 10% tariff, right? That same baseline 10% tariff we've been talking about for the last week and a half, two weeks or so. To be clear, what are on pause are those higher tariffs on countries like Madagascar, Vietnam, Switzerland, Japan, et cetera.

These are the country specific tariffs, right? That's what's on pause. The 10% baseline tariff still applies to all countries and territories. As it pertains to China's new increased tariff, US companies importing goods from China will now have to pay a 125% tax to receive those goods. And Chinese companies importing goods from China will now have to pay a 125% tax to receive those goods, and Chinese companies importing goods from the United States will have to pay an 84% tax to receive those goods.

On a related note, the, and actually before we get to the related note, just note too that this tariff situation is constantly changing. So by the end of the day today, it could change again. This is just what we know as of noon on Thursday. On a related note, the Trump administration also announced that it's revising an earlier plan to impose steep port fees on Chinese-built vessels to lessen the impact on US exports in the wake of the new tariffs. So the original plan was to charge Chinese-built vessels between $500,000 and $1.5 million for each port stop. Whether it was to load or unload cargo, refuel, undergo repairs, whatever caused them to stop at a US port. It's called a port call. A typical route from Asia involves an average of four US port calls. The intention behind the plan

was to encourage shipbuilding in the United States. However, after the announcement, shipping companies and trade groups pointed out that the fees would result in higher costs for American consumers, hurt U.S. farm exports, and threaten dock workers' jobs. Container operators also said they would cut their calls to U.S. ports by half as a result of these fees. So after this pushback, a US trade representative announced on Tuesday that the administration would revise the plan based on public feedback. And the new plan will base the fees mostly on vessel capacity, which will result in lower fees for the smaller ships

coming into American ports like LA, New York, Savannah, Georgia, and Oakland, California. The US trade office is also reportedly looking into easing the charges on ships that carry agricultural exports like soybeans and timber. Speaking of tariffs, let's talk about what's going on between Peter Navarro and Elon Musk. Over the course of the last few days, Elon Musk and Peter Navarro, Trump's senior counsel of trade, have taken part in a bit of a public dispute over tariffs. So at a press briefing this week, press secretary Caroline Levitt said, boys will be boys when asked about the public dispute. Musk fired the first public

shots, so to speak, when a user on X made a post that referenced a CNN interview with Peter Navarro on tariffs and Navarro's Harvard PhD. Musk responded to the post writing, quote, A PhD in econ from Harvard is a bad thing, not a good thing. It results in the ego brains over one problem, end quote. Later in the week, on Sunday, Musk took part in a video call with the Italian deputy prime minister. I actually talked about this call in Monday's episode briefly, but must basically said he wants a zero tariff solution between the United States and Europe. The next day, Navarro was being interviewed on Fox News.

He was asked about Musk's comments on a zero tariff solution to which he responded that Musk doesn't understand tariffs on the EU and quote, the thing that I think is important about Elon to understand is he sells cars. That's what he does. Then in a separate interview, this time with CNBC, Navarro said, quote, we all understand in the White House and the American people understand that Elon's a car manufacturer, but he's not a car manufacturer. He's a car assembler in many cases. He can go to his Texas plant and a good part of the engines that he gets, which in the EV case is the batteries come from Japan and come from China. What we want, and the difference between our thinking and

Elon's thinking on this, is we want the tires made in Akron, we want the transmissions made in Indianapolis, and we want the cars manufactured here." Navarro then goes on to say that what Musk wants is cheap foreign parts. So then, most recently on Tuesday, Musk wrote on X in a reply to the clip of that interview with Navarro, quote, Navarro is truly a moron. What he says here is demonstrably false. Tesla has the most American made cars. Navarro is dumber than a sack of bricks, end quote. And whether you like Musk or not, the reality is Tesla manufactures a significant amount of their own parts here in the United States. Tesla even refines some of the lithium used in the cars' batteries at an in-house lithium refinery in Texas. Companies like Cars.com and Kelley Blue Book have actually

named Teslas as some of the most American-made cars. So contrary to Navarro's comments, Musk isn't as much worried about cheap foreign parts as he is about Tesla being hurt by reciprocal tariffs from other countries. So to be clear, the reason for the disagreement is, Musk isn't necessarily a proponent of Trump's tariff strategy, whereas Navarro is. Navarro says he is focused on the country as a whole and asserting our power in trade, whereas Musk is only focused on car parts. But Musk says no, that's not true.

His disagreement with the trade policy goes far beyond cars and car parts. Okay, let's take our second and final break here. When we come back, we'll do quick hitters. Rumor has it, and we'll finish with that fun homework assignment. Okay, welcome back. Time for some quick hitters. The Trump administration reportedly froze more than $1 billion in federal funding for Cornell and $790

million for Northwestern while it investigates both schools over alleged civil rights violations. The latest consumer price index showed inflation cooling to an annual rate of 2.4% in March. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, prices decreased by 0.1% in March compared to the previous month compared to the 0.2% increase recorded in February. This marks the first time since May 2020 that prices have declined on a monthly basis. The US and Russia took part in a prisoner swap. The swap occurred at an airport in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the UAE, and resulted in the release of Arthur Petrov in exchange for Ksenia Karylina. Karylina is a Russian-American citizen. She had

been serving a 12-year sentence for treason in a high-security prison colony in Russia. In February of last year, while visiting her parents in Russia, she was detained and accused of financing the Ukrainian army by donating approximately $50 to the US-based Ukrainian aid charity Razum for Ukraine. Petrov, on the other hand, is a Russian-German citizen who is being held in the United States on charges related to export control violations, smuggling, wire fraud, and money laundering. He was specifically accused of illegally exporting military-grade electronics violations of U.S. sanctions on Russia. Homeland Security Secretary Christine Noem announced that the Trump administration is relaunching the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement Office,

otherwise known as VOICE. During the press conference, Noem said, quote, The VOICE office has three different objectives. The first is that it uses a victim-centered approach to provide support for crime victims and their families. Second, it will promote greater awareness of services available to victims of migrant crime. And third, it builds strong partnerships with community stakeholders assisting the victims of immigrant crime as well." End quote. On Wednesday, President Trump set an executive order titled Maintaining Acceptable Water Pressure in Showerheads. The order aims to restore a policy from Trump's first term by overturning a reversal made

by former President Biden. Biden's order had reinstated 2013 regulations that required an entire shower unit to fall under a 2.5 gallon per minute flow limitation. Trump's new order emphasizes that, quote, over-regulation chokes the American economy, entrenches bureaucrats, and stifles personal freedom. End quote. The order directs the Secretary of Energy to publish a notice in the Federal Register

rescinding the Energy Confirmation Program's definition of showerhead, and that change will go into effect 30 days after that notice is published. And finally, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate, challenging incumbent Senator John Cornyn in the upcoming Republican primary. Paxton made this announcement during an appearance on Fox News and emphasized his commitment to Republican values and support for President

Trump. And now it's time for Rumor Has It, my weekly segment where I address recent rumors submitted by all of you and either confirm them, dispel them, or add context. Rumor has it that President Trump is set to declare martial law on April 20th. This is false. The rumor has spread like wildfire on TikTok and other social media platforms, so let's clear the air. On the day that Trump took office, he signed a proclamation declaring a national emergency at the southern border. Consistent with

that proclamation, he directed the DOD and DHS to submit a joint assessment within 90 days about the conditions at the southern border and any recommendations regarding additional actions that might be necessary to obtain quote complete operational control of the southern border, including whether to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807, end quote. That 90th day when the joint assessment is due falls on April 20th and that is where this rumor is coming from. But here's the thing. The Insurrection Act of 1807 is not at all the same as martial law. So let's differentiate the two. The Insurrection Act was passed all the way back in 1807. It allows the president to deploy the US military or national guard in the following circumstances.

One, when a state legislature or governor requests the help of the federal government to address insurrection occurring in the state. Two, to address state-level insurrections that are impractical to address through law enforcement, and three, to address threats to constitutionally secured rights that occur in the presence of insurrection, violence, or civil unrest. Typically, under federal law, the federal government cannot use the military for law enforcement purposes domestically, right? But the Insurrection Act provides the exceptions. In the past, the Insurrection Act has been invoked by President Lincoln during the Civil War, President Ulysses S. Grant against the KKK, President Eisenhower and President Kennedy to enforce desegregation, and President George H.W.

Bush against the L.A. riots protesting police brutality against Rodney King and Black Americans. More recently in 2020, President Trump threatened to invoke the act in light of the George Floyd protests, but he never did. While it's true that both the Insurrection Act and martial law deploy the military domestically, martial law actually goes much, much further than the Insurrection Act. Marshal law not only replaces the authority of law enforcement with the military and soldiers, and allows military personnel to decide policy rather than elected officials, but also suspends civil liberties for citizens by putting the military in a position of power. The Insurrection Act does none of these things.

Put another way, the invocation of martial law means the suspension of constitutional rights for all citizens, including suspending the right to freely assemble, to speak, or to receive due process in court. It also suspends all local laws, civil authority, and sometimes local judiciaries. The Insurrection Act does none of these things. The Insurrection Act allows the military to be deployed to a specific area to assist law enforcement when the burden of a situation

becomes too much for local law enforcement to effectively handle. But it does not allow the military to replace law enforcement. It's also important to note that we don't even know if the president has the authority to unilaterally declare martial law. Martial law is not in the federal constitution

and the Supreme Court has never answered that question. State constitutions actually give the power of declaring martial law to state governors, but our federal constitution does not contain the same grant of authority. So to bring this back home, Trump's order regarding the southern border says nothing about martial law. Rather, it only mentions the Insurrection Act, which is entirely different than martial law, and therefore I can confirm that the rumor that President Trump may declare martial law

on April 20th is false. Rumor has it that the Trump administration is logging on public lands. This is true. So the act, a lot of you wrote in about this one. The act of logging is the process of cutting trees and preparing timber. Logging projects are often contested by conservation groups which can drag out the approval process and wind up taking years. Now, the administration's position is that the national forests are in crisis due to uncharacteristically severe wildfires, insect and disease outbreaks, invasive species, and other stressors, and that the Forest Service needs to take action to get a handle on these issues,

which includes various actions, including logging. Also, the administration, which I will talk about in a second, Trump just signed an executive order that directs the various agencies to do what they need to do to increase timber production. So that's the second part of this. But allow me to note that logging is not new, right? In fact, the Biden administration also went after more logging projects specifically to combat fires. According to US Forest Service records, the volume of trees logged equaled about 2.3 billion board feet in 2021, and by 2023, that number rose 24% to nearly 3 billion board feet. In 2024, the Biden administration was accused of rushing the approvals of new logging projects,

something the Forest Service has denied. Notably though, the Biden administration also tried enacting plans to protect old-growth forests, but those plans were dropped amid pushback from Republicans and the timber industry. So when President Trump took office, he signed this executive order titled, Immediate Expansion of American timber production. That order called on federal agencies to issue new or updated guidance regarding tools to facilitate increased timber production and sound forest management, reduce time to deliver timber and decrease timber supply uncertainty.

The order reads in part, quote, the production of timber, lumber, paper, bioenergy, and other wood products is critical to our nation's well-being. Timber production is essential for crucial human activities like construction and energy production. Furthermore, as recent disasters demonstrate, forest management and wildfire risk reduction projects can save American lives and communities. Now as we know, an executive order directs federal agencies to take action. So in accordance with that order, on April 3rd, last Thursday, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins issued a memo which essentially laid out actions for the Forest Service to take in response to

Trump's order. And this is what everyone's talking about. Rollins writes in that memo that U.S. domestic timber supply is enough to meet "'our timber production needs, "'but federal policies have stopped this "'and forced the U.S. to rely on foreign producers.'" She goes on to say that by reversing these policies and increasing domestic timber production, it will, quote,

"'protect our national and economic security "'and better provide domestic timber supply, "'create jobs and prosperity, reduce wildfire disasters, improve fish and wildlife habitats, and decrease costs of construction and energy." The memo then talks about how national forests are in crisis due to uncharacteristically severe wildfires, as well as insect and disease outbreaks, invasive species, and other stressors which have, quote, been compounded by too

little active management. End quote. Accordingly, the memo makes an emergency situation determination on over 112 million acres of national forestry system land. It's equivalent to about 59% of all national forestry system lands. And this was done citing high wildfire risk. 66.9 million of those acres are rated as very high or high wildfire risk. Another 78.8 million acres are experiencing a decline in forest health.

And the remaining 33.8 million are at risk of both wildfire and insect and disease risk. Now the reason for this emergency situation determination is because now the Forest Service can carry out relevant, quote-unquote, emergency actions to mitigate risk. The actions listed in the memo include things like the salvage of dead or dying trees, harvest of trees damaged by wind or ice or other natural disasters, removal of hazardous trees in close proximity to roads and trails, removal of hazardous fuels, replacement of underground cables, and more. As it pertains specifically to timber production, the memo says, quote, in order to increase

domestic jobs and prosperity, increase economic independence, and protect our national security, the Forest Service will issue new or updated guidance to increase timber production, decrease the time to offer timber supply, decrease the time to offer timber supply, and increase certainty in future timber supply. The Forest Service will also streamline, to the extent allowable by law, all processes related to timber production, including project planning, decision making, implementation, and required certifications. In other words, the Forest Service will work to fast-track the approval process to the

extent allowed under the law. Now, I did link both the Executive Order and the memo from the USDA. If you're interested in reading either of those, as always, you can find them in the Sources section of this episode, which is linked in the episode description. Before we end this episode, I have some homework for you. In this episode description, you will find a link that is titled, Ask the Administration. So I've set up this webpage on my website specifically because I want to know if you were given the chance to ask the president or his administration

any question, what would you ask? This is basically today's critical thinking segment, okay? So again, if you were granted the opportunity to ask the administration or the president anything, what would it be? You can find that submission link in this episode description, or just go to unbiasednetwork.com slash ask the administration. That is unbiasednetwork.com slash ask the administration, or just go to this episode description

and click the link that says ask the administration. I can't wait to see what you guys come up with that is what I have for you today have a Fantastic weekend and I will talk to you on Monday. Actually, don't forget I introduced I totally forgot to say this in the beginning of the episode I introduced this new unbiased in under five minutes unbiased politics in under five minutes So the day after each full length episode, I'll post an under five minute episode, which is kind of like an episode full of quick hitters, but it goes through all of the stories we covered

in today's episode, just in a lot less time. So if you're ever in a time crunch, but you wanna get caught up, maybe that episode is for you. It seems like you guys are loving it so far. So I will actually talk to you tomorrow for that under five minute episode, but I'll be back on Monday for a full length episode.

["The Highest Cashback"] Shop with Rakuten and you'll get it. What's it? It's the best deal, the highest cashback, the most savings on your shopping. So join Rakuten and start getting cashback at Sephora, Uniclo, Expedia, and other stores you love. You can even stack sales on top of cashback. Just start your shopping with Rakuten to save money at over 750 stores. Join for free at rakuten.ca or download the Rakuten app. That's R-A-K-U-T-E-N.

Rakuten.ca