UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (4/14/25): Recapping MY White House Press Briefing Attendance, Justices Say Trump Must Return Man Mistakenly Sent to El Salvador, Here's What the SAVE Act Says, and More.

Episode Date: April 14, 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: Recapping MY White House Press Briefing Attendance! (0:07) House Passes the SAVE Act. Here's What It Says (6:50) Trump Administration Exempts Electronics From Reciprocal Tariffs Temporarily (15:26) Supreme Court Says Trump Administration Must Facilitate Return of Man Mistakenly Sent to El Salvador (20:20) Trump Issues Memo Directing US Military to Take Over Roosevelt Reservation at Southern Border (30:00) Trump's Physician Releases Memo Following Annual Physical (33:38) House Passes Budget Resolution; Here's What It Means (36:51) Quick Hitters: All-Women Flights Goes to Space, NYC Helicopter Company to Shut Down After Crash, Man Arrested For PA Governor House Fire, Teenager Arrested for Killing Parents and Planning Assassination of Trump, Meta Antitrust Trial Begins Today, HHS to Investigate Cause of Autism, Social Security Administration Will Allow Phone ID Verification (39:43) Critical Thinking Segment (43:19) 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

FanDuel Casino's exclusive live dealer studio has your chance at the number one feeling. Winning. Which beats even the 27th best feeling saying I do. Who wants his last parachute? I do. Enjoy the number one feeling. Winning. In an exciting live dealer studio.

Exclusively on FanDuel Casino. Where winning is undefeated. 19 plus and physically located in Ontario. Gambling problem? Call 1-866-531-2600 or visit connectsontario.ca. Please play responsibly. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Monday, April 14th. Let's talk about some news.

First, though, I of course need to fill you guys in on my Friday. I couldn't really talk about it until it happened. Now that it's happened, I want to fill you in. If you saw, you saw. If you didn't, I got the opportunity to sit in on a press briefing at the White House on Friday and ask the press secretary some questions. And now maybe it makes sense why I gave you guys that homework last week, and I asked you what you would ask the administration if you could ask the administration anything. I really wanted to use the opportunity as a way to give you guys a voice. So I ended up, I asked a question of my own,

but I also ended up choosing a question from a woman named Brynn, because it was related to tariffs. And that's obviously one of the things that's top of mind for everyone right now. But to give you a little bit of a background as to why I was there, you may remember when the press secretary

did her first ever press briefing after President Trump took office. And she announced that the administration would be introducing what's called a new media seat. Actually, it might not have been the first ever press briefing, but it was one of the first. And basically what the new media seat. Actually, it might not have been the first ever press briefing, but it was one of the first. And basically what the new media seat was is if you're a content creator, independent

journalist, podcaster, really anyone involved in the news that's not employed by the mainstream media, you could apply for this new seat. And the administration chooses content creators and podcasters to bring in for these press briefings and sit in this particular seat. Okay, so like all of the other reporters are kind of filling up the entire press briefing room. And then the new media seat is in the front and it's specifically reserved for these independent content creators. When this new seat was announced, so many of you wrote in asking me to apply for it and I kind of kept quiet about it at the time because I wasn't sure What would happen but of course I applied and I got an email at the beginning of last week Letting me know that I was invited in case you haven't had a chance to see the clip

I'm going to play it now if you're watching on YouTube Hopefully it'll let me play it and it won't mark it as copyright. If it does mark it as copyright, you will know because nothing will play and I'll just get right into today's episode. But let's try it out, let's see what happens. Those of you listening audio only will for sure be able to hear it.

The clip is just under four minutes long. If you've heard it already, feel free to skip right ahead. But here it is. Here in our new media seat today, we have Jordan Berman. Jordan is a social media content creator and influencer and a lawyer who grew up following breaking down the news from a neutral perspective. Jordan is the host of her own podcast called Unbiased Politics where she dissects the top stories from the week from a legal perspective. Jordan focuses on bringing back real journalism from a nonpartisan perspective and has mastered

explaining complex legal decisions to a mass audience in the short-form context. Her two biggest platforms are TikTok and Instagram, where she has roughly half a million followers on each. With that, please kick us off, Jordan. Thank you. As you know, yesterday the House House Committee SAVE Act, and many married women, soon-to-be-married women, are concerned that the new voter ID requirements may inhibit their access to the polls. What assurances can you give women voters in America to ease their concerns? Sure. Well, the SAVE Act, as you mentioned, was passed by the House yesterday. This is the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. I

believe I'm getting that correct. And this act is a common-sense measure. It would require proof of citizenship for voting in our elections. The Democrats have been fear-mongering about this bill, have been saying that married women, if if their name has changed, they didn't change it on their identification, would not be able to vote. That is complete fallacy. There are outline in the bill about how to avoid that. The President very much supports a common sense solution to ensuring that only citizens

can engage in our elections. This is critical to improving the integrity of our elections and also the trust that American citizens need to have in our electoral process. So the President supports this bill and that is a myth that has been proven wrong by the text of this bill. And I believe some of the co-sponsors of the bill have been very vocal in addressing that. And certainly, I myself as a married woman would not stand before this podium if their president did not support such a common sense measure.

Thank you. For my next question, I actually want to give a voice to the American people. I sourced a question from one of my listeners. Her name is Bryn. She is from Oregon and she asked what if any plans do you have the administration for the money that will be generated by tariffs imposed on foreign goods? How will the administration facilitate the development of American industries when many critical components, labor parts, etc. are much cheaper and more feasible from foreign entities? It's a great question from your listener, and I want to thank her for submitting it

to you to ask. That's the part of the new media seat is so that everyday Americans across the country have a voice in this room. So thank you again for being here. Thanks for the question. The President's point about his trade and tariff agenda is to bolster our manufacturing industries here in our country, to bring down the cost of living here in our country, and to ensure that we are maintaining critical supply

chains here in America. We cannot be dependent on countries like China if we want this country to be strong and wealthy. So the President wants to restore wealth to America by shoring up these jobs here at home, which will result in good-paying jobs and higher wages for the American public. And so Americans should trust in that process. He effectively implemented tariffs in his first term while driving down the cost of

living in this country, and that's what he's focused on doing again. Thank you. As a follow-up question, could I just ask, are there any specific ideas that the administration has as to what that revenue, specific tariff revenue will be used for? Yes, to the heart of your question, the President has spoke about the trillions of dollars that he expects in revenue from tariffs and how we can use it to pay down our debt and to ensure that we are no longer faced with a crippling national debt in the trillions that

is going to bankrupt our nation for future generations. So that money coming back home will make America in the green rather than in the trillions that is going to bankrupt our nation for future generations. So that money coming back home will make America in the green rather than in the red, which any small business owner across the country, I believe can appreciate. Thank you so much. Thank you. So that was it.

It was the most incredible experience. It is something that I will, without a doubt, remember for the rest of my life. And I have all of you to thank. If I didn't have such a loyal base and if you guys didn't tune into my show for every episode and stick with me for as long as you have, I wouldn't be in that room. So thank you, thank you, thank you. I can't say thank you enough. Now, without further ado, let's get into today's stories, but we are going to stick with that

press briefing for a minute. So in that clip I just played, if you, or not if you, you did hear me ask the press secretary about the SAVE Act, and here's why. The House passed it on Thursday, and I immediately started receiving hundreds of messages asking what this means for women voters, specifically married women. And I've talked about the SAVE Act before, but now that the House passed it, it's being talked about more. So as I was lying in bed Thursday night,

unable to sleep, scrolling through all of my DMs and emails, I saw all of these questions about the SAVE Act and I took it as a sign and used it as one of the many, or one of my questions in the press briefing. Now, many people felt as if the press secretary did not properly answer my question. So I want to take this opportunity to clear up any confusion and tell you exactly what the SAVE Act says. First, the SAVE Act is more formally known as the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. It was introduced last year and was first

put on the floor on the House floor in July of 2024, but it failed to pass the Senate. And that could very well happen again, and we'll talk about that more in a minute. The SAVE Act requires documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote or when updating voter registration. The aim of the bill is to eliminate non-citizen voting, which happens, albeit rarely. Just recently, Michigan reported 13 cases of non-citizen voting in the 2024 election. Those cases have since been referred to the Attorney General for prosecution. So that's the goal of the bill, to do away with non-citizen voting in federal elections specifically. However, many married women and soon-to-be married women are concerned that this

law also targets them because when they change their last name after they get married, their last name will no longer match their birth certificate and therefore it will be harder for them to prove citizenship when either registering to vote or renewing their registration. So here is what the SAVE Act, if signed into law, and that is a big if, requires for proof of citizenship. Now, if you heard the original episode that I uploaded, it was only up for a few hours,

but those of you that heard it, I've replaced the audio with new audio because there is something that I need to issue a correction on. And that's also why if you're watching on YouTube, the portion of this episode is black just for the next few minutes because I had to replace it. So for purposes of showing proof of citizenship when registering to vote or renewing your registration, you have to provide one of the following. Either a form of ID consistent with the requirements of the Real ID Act of 2005, which indicates that the applicant is a citizen of the United States, or a valid U.S. passport, or an official military ID card that shows that person was born in the U.S., or another form of valid photo ID issued by a government body that shows the person was born in the United States.

If a person does not have any one of those forms of ID, so you don't have an ID issued consistent with the requirements of the Real ID Act of 2005, which also indicates US citizenship, you don't have a US passport, you don't have an official military ID, and you don't have a photo ID that shows you were born in the United States,

then you must have some sort of a valid government issued ID, doesn't have to have a photo ID that shows you were born in the United States, then you must have some sort of a valid government issued ID, doesn't have to be a photo ID, just some sort of government issued ID, with either a birth certificate, a record of birth, a final adoption decree, a consular report of birth abroad, a naturalization certificate, or an American Indian card. Keep in mind, and this is why I have to issue this correction, a real ID and an ID consistent with the requirements of the Real ID Act of 2005 are different, right? A real ID alone is not proof of citizenship.

So if you have a real ID, that in and of itself doesn't prove you're a U.S. citizen. And to be quite honest with you, I, and maybe this is just a result of me not doing enough research on this, for me it was more important to get this correction out. So perhaps in the next episode on Thursday, I can dive a bit more into this. But as of right now, I don't know what kind of ID would qualify here. In other words, I don't know of an ID that is consistent with the requirements of the Real ID Act of 2005 that also shows citizenship. So I will have to look into that more, but it is different than a Real ID, which around 56% of Americans do have.

Now the reason that married women and soon to be married women are concerned about these requirements is because, for instance, a woman's driver's license may show her married name, but her birth certificate still shows her maiden name. So if she has a driver's license that shows her new last name, and that driver's license is not consistent with the Real ID Act of 2005, and that ID doesn't show proof of citizenship,

she has to also present that ID with a birth certificate, right? But if the names are different, then what happens? Well, first of all, I want you to remember the only situation in which you have to show a birth certificate is if you don't have a US passport or one of those other forms of ID mentioned above, right? If you don't have a US passport or an ID consistent

with the Real ID Act of 2005 that also indicates citizenship or a military ID that indicates citizenship or some other form of ID that indicates citizenship Then yes, you have to show a form of government issued ID along with a birth certificate or something else showing you were born in the United States Notably the bill doesn't say anything about a woman being able to provide a marriage license as proof But we know from a lot of state elections that marriage certificates are sufficient for proving identification when your last name has changed. So to recap, if you are a married woman who has changed her last name, a US passport alone is sufficient. An ID consistent with the requirements of the Real ID Act that also indicates citizenship is sufficient by itself. A

military ID showing citizenship is by itself sufficient. Or another form of government issued ID showing citizenship is sufficient. If you don't have any one of those forms of ID, I would recommend getting a passport. First of all, that would be the easiest. But if you don't have one of these forms of ID by the time voter registration

or registration renewal comes around, then you will have to show multiple forms of ID, which time voter registration or registration renewal comes around, then you will have to show multiple forms of ID which I outlined above. Keep in mind too that if this law is signed or if this bill passes and is signed into law, it could very well be challenged as an equal protection and or due process issue because remember the constitution guarantees that we are all treated equally under the law regardless of sex, race, religion, etc. So if a woman has a harder time registering to vote than a man, the law would likely either be struck down on the basis that it doesn't provide equal treatment regardless of sex,

or at the very least, the law will have to be amended to include a marriage certificate as a permissible means of ID verification and therefore make it easy for a woman who has changed her last name. Now I want to finish this discussion by telling you why this probably won't get passed in the Senate and therefore likely will not become law. In the Senate, there is a rule called the cloture rule. So you know how in the House, a bill gets put on the floor and the House votes if it gets a simple majority, then the bill passes. Well, in the Senate, in order to even get to the floor vote, 60 senators have to vote to send it to the floor. Now, the margins in the Senate are tight. There are 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and two independents.

So even if all Republicans and both independents vote to send the bill to a floor vote, you still need five Democrats on board. That's not to say it's impossible. It could happen, but it would be a stretch. In fact, the reason the SAVE Act did not get signed into law after the House passed it back in 2024 is because the bill died in the Senate. So that's what you need to know there. It's not super cut and dry, but hopefully that outlines the requirements as far as voter identification and answers all of your questions. I do of course have this bill linked for you in the sources section, so if you do want to read it for yourself, you can find it by clicking the link in this episode description that says sources and then just scrolling all the way down to the bottom of that webpage,

you will find all the sources that are broken down by story. Let's take our first break here and I will be right back. Unwrap the early days of your favorite hockey stars with Tim's new retrospective rookies hockey cards featuring exclusive NHL and PWHL players and retired legends. Collect them all only at Tim's at participating restaurants in Canada for a limited time. Breaking news coming in from Bet365 where every nail biting overtime win, breakaway, pick six, three point shot, underdog win, buzzer beater, shoot out, walk off and absolutely every play in between is amazing. From football to basketball and hockey to baseball, whatever the moment, it's never

ordinary at Bet365. Must be 19 or older, Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you or someone you know has concerns about gambling, visit connectsontario.ca. Welcome back. On Friday, the Trump administration and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick announced that electronics, including smartphones and laptops, will be excluded from reciprocal tariffs for now. The announcement came after the US Customs and Border Protection issued

a notice to shippers on April 5th that listed electronics, including smartphones, laptops, hard drives, flat panel monitors, some chips, and machines used to make semiconductors as exempt from the tariffs. Note that this exemption is temporary, at least that's what the administration is saying, but that the impact of this new announcement works in two parts. So, for tech products manufactured outside of China, imports will be exempt from Trump's 10% baseline tariff. This impacts technology like the iPhone, which yes, is mostly produced in China, but also in India, and semiconductors, which are produced in Taiwan. Notably, like I said, the iPhone is produced 90% of its production and assembly process is based in China, but it is partially produced in India. So for anything coming from India, those imports would not be subject to the 10% baseline tariff.

For tech products manufactured by China, the exemption applies only to the heightened reciprocal tariffs on China, which currently stand at 145% as of this week. This exemption does not apply to the original 20% tariff placed on China in response to China's role in the fentanyl crisis here in the United States. In other words, these tech products that are produced by China will not be subject to the 145% tariff, but they will be subject to the 20% tariff originally imposed on China when President Trump took office. Furthermore, tech products produced outside of China will not be subject to that 10% baseline tariff that is imposed on all countries and territories. The exclusion of electronics also marks the latest update for the Magnificent 7, which

includes tech companies Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Amazon, Tesla, Alphabet, which is the parent company of Google, and Meta. Earlier this month, when the tariffs were first announced, the combined market value of the Magnificent 7 dropped by 2.1 trillion or 14% after the announcement of the temporary exclusion of electronics from the tariffs. The combined loss decreased to just 4%.

To give you an idea of the trade relationship we have with China when it comes to smartphones and laptops specifically, I'll put some numbers on it for you. In 2024, US imports from China totaled 41.7 billion in smartphones and $33.1 billion in laptops. According to the US International Trade Commission,

nearly 25% of electronic goods imported into the United States are manufactured in China. Secretary Lutnick said yesterday that while these electronics will be temporarily excluded from reciprocal tariffs, they will eventually fall under tariffs for semiconductors, which are set to be imposed in about a month or two. Lnik said in part quote, all those products are going to fall under semiconductors and they're going to have a special focus type of tariff to make sure that those products get reshored. We need to have semiconductors, we need to have chips, and we need to have flat panels. We need to have these things made

in America. We can't be reliant on Southeast Asia for all of the things that operate for us. So what the president is doing is he's saying they're exempt from the reciprocal tariffs, but they're included in the semiconductor tariffs, which are coming in probably a month or two, end quote. What's happening here is the White House is opening a national security trade investigation to assess the impact of importing semiconductors.

If the results of that investigation produce evidence that support the idea that the production of semiconductors should be moved to the United States, which it likely will, that's when the additional tariffs on semiconductors will likely be implemented. And like Letnik said, that'll probably be in the next one to two months. The Chinese Ministry of Commerce said that the Trump administration's decision to implement

temporary exemptions for tech products was, quote, a small step by the US to correct its wrong practice of unilateral, quote, reciprocal tariffs. The ministry also urged the United States to take other major steps in correcting what China deems to be wrongdoing by canceling the tariffs on China completely. Trump though has told reporters that he has a strong relationship with President Xi of China and predicts that the US will come out with the upper hand in the current trade war. By the way, just as a final note here, as of Saturday, China raised its tariffs on us from 84% to 125%. So tariffs on Chinese goods

coming into America stand at 145%. Tariffs on American goods going into China stand at 125%. In some other news, the Supreme Court told the Trump administration that it must facilitate the return of a man mistakenly sent to El Salvador last month. As a brief recap, Kilmar Armando Abrego-Garcia was sent to El Salvador last month on a plane full of suspected gang members due to what the administration has called an administrative error. Abrego-Garcia came to the United States illegally when he was a teenager. In 2019, immigration officials began efforts to deport him. When he asked to be released from immigration custody with a bond, the government argued

against it, saying he was a member of the MS-13 gang. In support of that argument, the government presented testimony from a confidential informant that testified about Abrego Garcia's clothing choices, his gang membership, gang rank, and gang name. In denying Abrego Garcia's request for release, the judge wrote that the evidence showed that Abrego Garcia was a, quote, verified member of MS-13.

The judge also noted that she was reluctant to give evidentiary weight to the clothing portion of the testimony, but that it was enough that a past proven and reliable source of information had verified Abrego Garcia's gang membership, gang rank, and gang name. Abrego Garcia then appealed this ruling and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed it, meaning he would remain in custody. So months later, Abrego Garcia was actually granted a withholding of removal, which meant that he could not be deported back to El Salvador. At the time, an immigration judge found that Abrego Garcia had shown that gang members back in El Salvador continued to threaten and harass his family, and that authorities in El Salvador

were and would be unable to protect him from past or feared future prosecution. So as a result, he was granted this order that prohibited his removal from the United States. Abrego Garcia was also granted a work order by the DHS. He married a US citizen, and he's been working in the US until last month when the government arrested and deported him. So following his removal, Abrego Garcia's attorneys filed a lawsuit. We've talked about this in past episodes. His attorneys were seeking his return to the United States on the basis that his removal was illegal, something that the administration did not necessarily dispute. The administration, though, argued that because Abrego Garcia had been found to be a member

of the MS-13 gang years ago, his return to the United States would pose a threat to the public. Abrego Garcia, though, contends he is not a member of the gang and he has never been charged with a crime. When the court asked the administration to provide additional proof of Abrego Garcia's gang involvement, other than the confidential informants testimony, the administration was unable to do so. So ultimately, the district court ordered the administration to, quote, facilitate and

effectuate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States by no later than 1159 PM on Monday, April 7th. Immediately after this, the administration went to the Supreme Court, asked for an emergency stay on the deadline, basically asking for a pause on the deadline, and Chief Justice Roberts granted that. Now, what Chief Justice Roberts said is, I'm going to put this on pause, but the plaintiff has to submit his response to the administration's appeal and the justices will release a decision on the matter in the coming days after reviewing the arguments on both sides. The administration's position was that a court does not have the proper authority to intervene in foreign relations and

order a deportee to be returned that foreign relations are solely reserved for the president. In a unanimous decision on Friday, all nine justices said, quote, The order properly requires the government to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term effectuate in the district court's order is, however, unclear and may exceed the district court's authority. The district court should clarify its directive with due regard for the deference owed to the executive branch

in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps. In less words, the District Court was correct in ordering the administration to facilitate and effectuate the man's return to the United States, but that the District Court needs to clarify what it meant by effectuate while also keeping in mind the executive branch's authority in conducting foreign affairs and that the administration needs to tell the court what it has done to get Abrego Garcia back to the United States.

So following that ruling, the appellate court then issued another ruling consistent with the Supreme Court's directive. And what the appellate court said was that the administration had to take all available steps to facilitate the return of a brego-garcia as soon as possible and To the beginning Saturday this past Saturday the administration had to start filing daily updates with the court every day About one the current physical location and custodial status of a brego-garcia to what steps if any the government has taken to facilitate his immediate return to the United States, and three, what additional steps the government will take and when to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return.

Now the word facilitate is important here because the administration said yesterday in a filing that it understands the word facilitate to mean actions allowing an alien to enter the United States. So the administration interprets the court's directive to mean that it has to take all available steps to remove any domestic obstacles

that would impede a Briego-Garcia's return, not take all available steps to work with the government of El Salvador to get him back. The administration writes in its filing, quote, No other reading of facilitate is tenable or constitutional here. The administration says, quote, Reading facilitate as requiring something more than domestic measures would not only flout the Supreme Court's order, but also violate the separation of powers.

The federal courts have no authority to direct the executive branch to conduct foreign relations in a particular way or engage with a foreign sovereign in a given manner. That is the exclusive power of the president." End quote. Importantly, let's remember what the Supreme Court said in its ruling. What the Supreme Court said was that the district court's order properly requires the government to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador. So this is likely not a winning argument for the administration. But as far as the court's directive for the government to share a status update on Abrego Garcia, the administration told the court that Abrego Garcia is alive and secure and in

the custody of El Salvador at the Terrorism Confinement Center. The administration said it would continue to share updates with the court as appropriate, but any further intrusion into this sensitive process and any directive from the court to take action against the nation of El Salvador would be inconsistent with the care counseled by the Supreme Court. Notably today, the president met with or President Trump met with the president of El Salvador, not necessarily for the purpose of discussing a Briego Garcia's return, but it was brought up by the press. So this is one of those meetings that happens in the Oval Office. There's about 13 members of the press that are allowed in and they can ask questions to

both President Trump and the president of El Salvador. So I believe it was Caitlin Collins from CNN who asked about this ruling out of the Supreme Court and what the administration was doing to get Abrego Garcia back in the United States. El Salvador's president said that he does not have the power to return Abrego Garcia and he has no plans to do so. Attorney General Pam Bondi said that he does not have the power to return a brego-garcia and he has no plans to do so Attorney General Pam Bondi said that the United States would provide a plane if El Salvador wanted to send a brego-garcia Back and again, that is what prompted the president of El Salvador to say that El Salvador has no plans to send a brego-garcia back He said that that would be like smuggling a terrorist into the United States,

which he would not do. What it seems like from what we heard at this meeting between President Trump and the President of El Salvador is that the United States government is of the position, still, despite the Supreme Court's order, that because Abrego Garcia is an El Salvador citizen and is currently in El Salvador, it is up to the president of El Salvador whether to return him. And if the president of El Salvador decides not to do so, the United States government has no obligation to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return because the courts cannot interfere with the executive branch's power to handle foreign affairs.

So this likely is not over. We will probably see another order from the appellate court that tells the administration what it needs to do to facilitate Abrego-Garcia's return. Whether that's just what the administration is saying and simply remove any domestic obstacles or whether it's something more and the administration is directed to actually work with the government of El Salvador to get Abrego Garcia back. Something tells me that if it's more, which it probably will be, we will see this back in the hands of the Supreme Court so

that the Supreme Court can decide, you know, what exactly the administration has to do here. So stay tuned. I'll be sure to update you as we learn more. Let's take our second and final break here. When we come back, we'll talk about the military being deployed to the southern border, the House budget resolution, Trump's annual physical, some quick hitters, and critical thinking. Do you eat food? Three times the points. Do you go anywhere?

Three times the points. Do you stream stuff? Three times the points. Well then, get the RBC ION Plus Visa and earn three times the points at grocery stores and restaurants as well as on gas, EV charging, daily transit, streaming services, digital gaming and more. All the time. Get the RBC ION Plus Visa.

Conditions apply. Visit rbc.com slash ion cards. Okay Martin, let's try one. Remember, big. Conditions apply. Visit rbc.com slash ioncards. Okay, Martin, let's try one. Remember, big. You got it. The Ford It's a Big Deal event is on. How's that? 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. President Trump issued a memo granting the United States military jurisdiction of a strip of land at the southern border called the Roosevelt Reservation, something he did during his first administration too. So I want you to picture a map of land at the southern border called the Roosevelt Reservation, something he did during his first administration too. So I want you to picture a map of the southwest region of the United States. The Roosevelt Reservation runs along the southern border of the United States from the coast of California to about halfway into New Mexico. It's about 2,000 miles long. It stretches about 60 feet deep. As you might guess, it was President Roosevelt

who created this reservation in 1907 for the purpose of keeping the public lands along the border free from obstruction as a protection against the smuggling of goods between the United States and Mexico. Also a little history fun fact for you. I mentioned a second ago how the reservation stops halfway into New Mexico at the southern border, and that's because that's the point at which New Mexico stops bordering Mexico and Texas takes over the southern border. But in 1907, Texas was actually excluded from the Roosevelt reservation because Texas retained all public lands after the Texas annexation and admittance as a state. And over the years, much of that Texas land that borders Mexico has actually been sold

to private parties. So that's just a little tidbit of information for you as to why the Roosevelt Reservation stops where it does. But anyway, Trump's new memo titled Military Mission for Sealing the Southern Border of the United States and Repelling Invasions, says quote, Our southern border is under attack from a variety of threats. The complexity of the current situation requires that our military take a more direct role in securing our southern border than in the recent past. End quote.

The memo includes the Roosevelt Reservation in its directive specifying control over quote, federal lands that are reasonably necessary to enable military activities and quote so granting military control over the Roosevelt Reservation will essentially give troops the power to detain people who attempt to illegally cross into the United States because the land will be under the control of the Defense Department and become a national defense area. According to the memo, the Defense Secretary can determine exactly which military activities take place on the land while the DoD has control. However, the activities have to be reasonably necessary and appropriate

to accomplish the mission of securing the border. As examples, the Pentagon has the authority to build walls and barriers, implement equipment to detect possible illegal entries, and establish active-duty military spaces where troops will be deployed. Trump's memo marks phase one of introducing military measures to the border and does leave open the possibility that more troops will be deployed in the coming months. This first phase will last 45 days after which the Defense Secretary will evaluate the success of the initiative and report any recommendations back to the White House. Critics of this memo argued that militarizing the border could potentially

violate the Posse Comitatus Act which prohibits the president from using the military as a domestic form of law enforcement. And this actually takes us back to a conversation we had in Thursday's episode, right? So we talked about the Insurrection Act versus martial law. In short, martial law allows the military to replace law enforcement, whereas the Insurrection Act allows the military to assist law enforcement in a specific area. Well, the Insurrection Act is an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. And we know from last episode that the Insurrection Act is something that the president is considering invoking at the southern border as soon as next week,

if it's necessary. So critics are concerned that militarizing the border could potentially violate this Posse Comitatus Act. But again again the Insurrection Act is an exception to that law. If you want more on that martial law versus Insurrection Act discussion, go listen to last Thursday's episode. For now, let's move on to the next story. The president had his annual physical on Friday. The physician released the report yesterday, so let's go over it. In fact, at the press briefing on Friday, one of the reporters asked the press secretary if the administration Would be releasing the report and maintaining quote-unquote Transparency with the American public about the president's health

The press secretary said the physician would release the report when it was ready and did say nothing would be left out So let's talk about what we know from the physicians memo It says that the president's height is 75 inches or six feet, three inches tall. His weight is 224 pounds, which is down about 20 pounds from his last physical during his first administration. His resting heart rate was 62 beats per minute. His blood pressure was 128 over 74

and his pulse oximetry was 99%. The exam also consisted of evaluations of his eyes, head, ears, nose, throat, neck, pulmonary system, cardiac system, gastrointestinal and abdominal system, genitourinary system, extremities and musculoskeletal system, neurological system, and dermatologic system. His eye evaluation was normal, nothing noted with the head, ears, nose, or throat besides scarring on the right ear from a gunshot wound. Nothing noted in the neck, nothing noted in the pulmonary system,

no abnormalities in the cardiac system, abdominal exam and ultrasound were also both normal. A 2024 colonoscopy showed diverticulosis and a benign polyp with another colonoscopy recommended in three years. Nothing abnormal in the joints and muscles, no abnormalities in the neurological system. He scored a quote-unquote normal score of 30 out of 30 on the Montreal cognitive assessment and a normal range on the patient health questionnaire 9 and the generalized anxiety disorder 7,

which screened for depression and anxiety respectively. The dermatologic exam revealed minor sun damage and a few benign lesions. His lipid panel, complete blood count, and metabolic panel were all within normal range, though he does take two medications for cholesterol control. The physician wrote, quote, his medical history is notable for well controlled hypercholesterolemia, seasonal allergies, a history of COVID, well managed rosacea, actinic keratosis, benign nevi, diverticulosis, and a benign colon polyp. In summary, quote, President Trump remains in excellent health exhibiting robust cardiac pulmonary, neurological, and general physical function. His active lifestyle continues to contribute

significantly to his well-being. President Trump's days include participation in multiple meetings, public appearances, press availability, and frequent victories in golf events. President Trump exhibits excellent cognitive and physical health and is fully fit to execute the duties of the Commander-in- in chief and head of state." Moving on to the next story, on Thursday the House adopted a budget blueprint in a 216 to 214 vote, all but two Republicans voted in favor of it, all Democrats voted against it. So to be clear, a budget resolution does not actually provide funding for federal programs, it does not change tax laws, it does not modify anything at all for that matter. Budget resolutions instead set targets and guidelines

in this case for fiscal years 2025 through 2034. The reason we care that the House passed this budget resolution is because Congress can now officially start working on its budget reconciliation legislation, which will make changes to federal funding. You may remember we originally started talking about this a couple of months ago.

I said the House and Senate needed to agree on a budget resolution, but before the actual legislation, part of the process could begin. So back in February, the House and Senate approved separate versions of the budget resolution. Then on April 5th,

the Senate passed an alternative budget resolution that was more in line with what the House had in mind. And on Thursday, the House passed the Senate's alternative budget resolution. So now both chambers of Congress are on the same page. From here, specific committees within Congress will start drafting legislation that is consistent with the instructions in the budget resolution. For instance, the resolution instructs the House Energy and Commerce Committee to cut a minimum of $880 billion in spending over the next 10 years.

This committee has primary jurisdiction over many programs, but the one most people are concerned with is Medicare. So the House Energy and Commerce Committee will now have to draft legislation that will specify where that $880 billion will be cut from. It could include cuts to Medicare, it could include cuts to other programs, we don't know yet. Nonpartisan think tanks like the Economic Policy Institute have noted that it would be impossible to cut $880 billion in spending without severely cutting Medicaid's budget.

But Republican lawmakers have said that essential programs will be preserved and savings can instead be found by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. Another element of the blueprint is the extension of Trump's 2017 tax cuts, which sets the goal of enacting up to $1.5 trillion in new tax breaks, though it's not yet clear where those tax perks will be. In the past, Republicans have talked about removing taxes on trillion in new tax breaks, though it's not yet clear where those tax perks will be. In the past, Republicans have talked about removing taxes on tips, restoring tax breaks for businesses,

and expanding the child tax credit. So those could be things included in that 1.5 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office analysis predicted that these tax breaks would increase the federal deficit by six trillion over the next decade. Speaking of the federal deficit, the resolution called for a $5 trillion increase to the debt ceiling. So as bills start getting passed and as we start getting a better idea of where these cuts will be and where the tax breaks will be, I will let you know. Time for some quick hitters. Today, six women took the first all-female

flight into space since 1963 when a Soviet-era cosmonaut took a three-day solo mission to space. The six women that went up this morning included singer Katy Perry, journalist Gayle King, former journalist and fiancée to Jeff Bezos, Lauren Sanchez, former NASA scientist Aisha Boe, civil rights activist Amanda Nguyen, and producer Carrie Anne Flynn. The flight took off at 9.30 a.m. Eastern Time this morning, lasted just over 10 minutes, and landed back on Earth at 9.42 a.m. On Thursday, a helicopter operating a tour out of New York City crashed into the Hudson River, killing all six on board. Today, the FAA said the company is shutting down immediately. Following the crash, the National Transportation Safety Board said the helicopter was not equipped with any flight recorders or onboard cameras.

The FAA will now launch a review of the company's license and safety records. A 38-year-old man is facing charges including criminal attempted homicide, aggravated arson, burglary, terrorism, and more after allegedly jumping a fence on Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro's official residence, breaking in and starting multiple fires with Molotov cocktails while the Shapiro family was inside. The man later told authorities that he harbored hatred towards the governor and planned to beat him with a hammer if confronted. The FBI has unsealed an arrest warrant for a teenager who murdered his parents in February and planned to use the money obtained through the murders

to assassinate President Trump. The FBI said 17-year-old Nikita Kasap detailed his intentions in a three-page manifesto praising Hitler and planned to kill Trump and then flee to Ukraine. Kasap murdered his mom and stepped out in February and lived in the same home as their bodies for weeks before leaving the state. He was eventually pulled over by Kansas police with $14,000 in cash, passports, and the family dog. The biggest antitrust case against Metta started today. The FTC began this investigation into Metta about six years ago after it acquired both Instagram and WhatsApp. The FTC alleges that

Metta violated competition laws by acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp, and that the acquisition of the two platforms was part of a strategy to eliminate competition and maintain monopoly power over the social media market. However, Metta argues that it's being punished for being an innovative and aggressive tech company and that it has always competed fairly. The FTC ultimately wants Meta to unwind its purchase of both Instagram and WhatsApp in order to restore competition to the social media market.

That trial is expected to last up to eight weeks. In a televised cabinet meeting on Thursday, HHS Secretary Kennedy said the HHS will determine the cause of autism by September. Kennedy said the agency would undertake a massive testing and research effort to identify the cause of autism, but did not clarify how the study would differ from past efforts or say which researchers would be involved. And on Friday, the Social Security Administration announced that it will allow identification verification over the phone,

rolling back a previous announcement requiring in-person visits. Initially, the agency said people would no longer be able to file for retirement and disability benefits over the phone because the agency would not be able to sufficiently verify applicants' identities that way. However, the agency now says only those that are flagged over fraud concerns will have to appear in person. The White House says it invested over 16 million in a new anti-fraud software that will allow employees to flag suspected fraud over the phone and it will be those individuals that have to verify their identity in person.

And now for some critical thinking. Of course, today's critical thinking segment, we're going to go back to the SAVE Act because it's a hot topic at the moment. It's also something I talked about at the press briefing. Remember, these critical thinking segments are not meant to be complex. They are not meant to stump you. They are just an exercise to keep us forming our own opinions, thinking more for ourselves, and most importantly, challenging our own beliefs. First step is always to check in with our own opinions and beliefs. So what are your thoughts on a voter ID like this one. If the purpose is to prohibit non-citizens from taking part in federal elections, do you support it or do you oppose it? And if you oppose it, is it the idea of voter ID that you oppose or is it the way it's being implemented? Now, if you support the SAVE

Act, I want you to think about how the law should handle the cases where a married woman doesn't have a real ID, doesn cases where a married woman doesn't have a real ID, doesn't have a passport, doesn't have a government-issued ID that matches her birth certificate without unintentionally denying her the right to vote. Is it possible to protect against fraud and protect access at the same time? And what would that look like? How would that be done? If you oppose the voter ID law, assuming it's not the idea of voter ID that you oppose, but rather the way it's being implemented, what would be your alternative

that still ensures only those with the right to vote are participating in federal elections? That only those who have a vested interest in the policies and laws of this country have a say in who takes office? What would that look like? That is what I have for you today. Have a fantastic next couple of days and I will talk to you again on Thursday.