UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (4/28/25): Judge Arrested for Assisting ICE Evasion? U.S. Citizen Children "Deported?" PLUS Journalists Records Can Be Subpoenaed Again, and More.

Episode Date: April 28, 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: Judge Arrested for Allegedly Helping Undocumented Immigrant Evade ICE (0:12) DOJ Issues New Rule Bringing Back Subpoenas for Journalists' Records (11:06) Paramount Global Getting Rid of DEI Initiatives; '60 Minutes' Executive Producer Resigns; Here's Why (15:35) New Reports Say Trump Administration Deported US Citizen Children; Administration Says Otherwise (21:42) Trump to Sign Two Executive Orders; One Targeting Sanctuary Cities, Another for 'Law and Order' (31:45) Quick Hitters: Rubio Says No to Canada Annexation, Trump Signs EO Pertaining to Probationary Employees, Bessent Says China Needs to De-Escalate, Trump's Approval Rating Down, Posters of Illegal Immigrants on White House Lawn, Former Rep. Santos Sentenced (34:52) Critical Thinking Segment (38:10) 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

From early morning workouts that need a boost, to late night drives that need vibes, a good playlist can help you make the most out of your everyday. And when it comes to everyday spending, you can count on the PC Insider's World Elite MasterCard to help you earn the most PC optimum points everywhere you shop. With the best playlists, you never miss a good song. With this card, you never miss out on getting the most points on everyday purchases. The PC Insider's World's Elite MasterCard, the card for living unlimited.

Conditions apply to all benefits. Visit pcfinancial.ca for details. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Monday, April 28th. Let's talk about some news. First story of the day,

let's talk about this Milwaukee judge that was arrested for allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant evade ICE. Note that this story really started getting talked about at the end of last week, but this has actually been going on for about a week and a half. The criminal complaint against the judge

was filed on April 18th. But what that means is that we can actually talk about the allegations because they're all laid out in that complaint. Keep in mind the complaint was filed by the DOJ and I do have it available for you in the sources section of this episode. So the complaint charges Judge Hannah Dugan with two offenses. One, obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a department or agency of the United States, and two, concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest.

And again, everything I'm about to tell you is coming from that criminal complaint. So on March 18th, Eduardo Flores Ruiz was charged in Milwaukee County with three counts of battery, domestic abuse, and infliction of physical pain or injury. These charges were brought after a fight between Flores Ruiz and his roommates in March. Apparently, he was accused of playing music too loudly by someone else and then they got

in a fight and Flores Ruiz allegedly punched this person about 30 times and then struck a woman who tried to break up the fight. But to fully understand the full scope of the story, we actually have to back up about 12 years. So in January, 2013, Flores Ruiz was issued an I-860 notice and order of expedited removal by the US Border Patrol. Now, this is a particular type of removal that happens quickly without a hearing before an immigration judge because the person that this order is issued against is considered to be an arriving alien, meaning they are attempting to enter or have recently entered

the United States illegally. So Flores Ruiz was deported back to Mexico, and at some point between then and now, he re-entered the United States without lawful authorization. Fast forward to March 18th of this year, and he is arrested and charged with three counts of battery, domestic abuse, and infliction of physical pain or injury. At some point thereafter, a Milwaukee ICE enforcement and removal operations officer determined through fingerprint comparisons of Flores Ruiz that he was previously removed from the country. Upon finding probable cause that he had reentered the country illegally, the immigration officer issued a warrant for his arrest.

This means that once he was arrested per that warrant, his prior deportation order would be reinstated. So law enforcement officers knew that he was scheduled to attend his hearing in connection to that battery domestic abuse charge charges in front of Judge Dugan on April 18th and they figured that would be a good place to arrest him. Six plainclothes members of Milwaukee ICE show up to the Milwaukee courthouse at about 8 a.m. They tell the security guard that they are

there to make an arrest. The security guard says that she needs to speak to a supervisor. At that point, a shift sergeant with Milwaukee County Sheriff's Office spoke to a deportation officer. They discussed the details of the planned arrest, including which courtroom that the defendant would be in.

The agreement that was reached on the call was that the defendant would be in, the agreement that was reached on the call was that the defendant wouldn't be arrested until after that hearing was over. So the deportation officers agree they proceed down the hall and they're waiting outside of courtroom 615. Two of the FBI agents that were also there for the arrest had notified the courtroom deputy as to why they were there. While they were waiting in the hallway, a woman came up and took a picture of them. That woman was later identified as a public defender for the state of Wisconsin. According to the criminal complaint, that woman then went into the courtroom and approached

Judge Dugan's clerk to tell the clerk that there appeared to be ICE agents in the hallway. The clerk then got up and talked with Judge Duggan, who, quote, "...became visibly angry, commented that the situation was absurd, left the bench, and entered chambers," which is the back room where the judge's office is. Members of the arrest team reported that the judge then came out to the public hallway and approached the officers with another judge. From there, there was a bit of a disagreement as to what kind of warrant was needed to make an arrest. The officers had an administrative warrant, which they said was fine, but Judge Duggan said they needed a judicial warrant. Judge Duggan then

takes the officers to the chief judge to sort the warrant issue out there. And at that point, Judge Dugan goes back to her courtroom. Multiple witnesses have described what they saw after Judge Dugan returned to the courtroom. The courtroom deputy recalled the defense counsel for Flores Ruiz talking to the clerk and Flores Ruiz being seated in the jury box

rather than the gallery. So if you picture a courtroom, right, you know where the jury box, that's where the jury sits. Sometimes where a defendant that's in custody will sit, whereas the gallery is where everyone else sits, everyone who comes to the hearing, who's not in custody or who's just coming to watch the hearing. So after Flores Ruiz's attorney and the clerk speak with one another, Flores Ruiz and his

attorney start to walk toward each other and then toward the public courtroom exit, which would have taken them to that public hallway where ICE agents were waiting. According to the courtroom deputy, he saw Judge Dugan get up from her chair and then say something like, wait, come with me. Judge Dugan then, quote, escorted them out of the courtroom through the jury door, end quote. The FBI agent who wrote the affidavit

in support of this criminal complaint said that Flores Ruiz sitting in the jury box was unusual for two reasons. One, because according to the courtroom deputy, Judge Dugan directed people not to sit in the jury box specifically. And two, because only deputies, juries, court staff, and escorted in custody defendants use that jury door. But that, you know, defense attorneys and defendants use that jury door, but that defense attorneys and defendants not in custody never use this jury door, which these two were escorted out of. Nonetheless, Flores Ruiz and his attorney were spotted by a couple of DEA agents in the public hallway outside the courtroom once they left through that jury door.

And the DEA agents watched them get in the elevator. One of the DEA agents was in the elevator with them, but couldn't understand what they were talking about because they were speaking in Spanish. From there, Flores Ruiz and his attorney exited the elevator, they left the courthouse, and Flores Ruiz was apparently waiting near a flagpole outside the front of the courthouse.

At least it seemed like he was waiting. It said he was standing in front of a flagpole outside of the courthouse. At least it seemed like he was waiting. It said he was standing in front of a flagpole outside of the courthouse. Agents then approached him, identified themselves as law enforcement, and that is when he started to run. But eventually he was apprehended. The criminal complaint said that the run spanned the length of the courthouse. He was eventually apprehended, brought into custody, And Judge Dugan was charged with, again, one, obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a department or agency of the United States, and two, concealing an individual

to prevent his discovery and arrest. She made her first appearance in federal court on April 25th. She didn't make any public comments, but she did previously respond to the accusations outlined in the complaint last week, calling them inaccurate. And her attorney told the court, quote, Judge Dugan wholeheartedly regrets and protests her arrest. It was not made in the interest of public safety, end quote. Dugan's arrest has drawn criticism from Democrats,

including the governor of Wisconsin, Tony Evers, who said that the Trump administration has pursued legal action against judges that disagree with the agenda of the administration. Evers accused Trump of using, quote, dangerous rhetoric to attack and undermine our judiciary at every level, including disobeying the highest court in the land. End quote. These remarks were echoed by Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson, who said in a press briefing, quote, the Trump administration is just trying to have this show of force. And in the process of doing this in a courthouse where people need to go for court proceedings, they're scaring away

people from participating in the process. And that makes our community feel less safe. End quote. Representative Jamie Raskin said, quote, this is a drastic escalation and dangerous new front in Trump's authoritarian campaign of trying to bully, intimidate and impeach judges who won't follow his dictates. We must do whatever we can to defend the independent judiciary in America. End quote. Republicans, though, including Borders are Tom Homan, support the decision to arrest Dugan. Homan said on X, quote, I have said many times within the past few months

that people can choose to support illegal immigration and not assist ICE in removing criminal illegal aliens from our communities, but don't cross that line. If you actively impede our enforcement efforts or if you knowingly harbor or conceal illegal aliens from ICE, you will be prosecuted. These actions are felonies. End quote. Attorney General Pam

Bondi similarly supported Dugan's arrest, saying, quote, We could not believe that a judge really did that. You cannot obstruct a criminal case and really shame on her. It was a domestic violence case of all cases, and she's protecting a criminal defendant over victims of crime. End quote. FBI Director Kash Patel also responded positively to Dugan's arrest saying, "...we believe Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested in her courthouse, allowing the subject, an illegal alien, to evade arrest. Thankfully, our agents chased down the perp on foot and he's been in custody since, but the judge's obstruction created increased danger to the public." End quote. So that is where Judge Dugan's case

stands as of now. She is not currently in custody. Her next court appearance is May 15th and in the meantime a reserve judge has taken over her court calendar. As for Florez Ruiz, as I just said, the FBI Director, Cash Patel, did say he is currently in FBI custody. We will revisit this story in the critical thinking segment of today's episode, but for now, let's move on to some more law enforcement adjacent news. A new Trump administration rule will end a Biden era policy

of not subpoenaing journalists for information. So previously under the Biden administration, federal officials could not seek journalist records and force them to testify in investigations concerning leaked information. Prior to the Biden administration though, many administrations had seized things like phone records of journalists as well as other materials. In fact, in 2013, the Obama DOJ told the Associated Press that it had secretly obtained two months of phone records of reporters and editors.

The AP called that a massive and unprecedented intrusion. But the Biden era policy was issued in 2022 by then Attorney General Merrick Garland after DOJ officials told reporters at the Washington Post, CNN and New York Times that their phone records had been obtained in the final year of the Trump administration. So with that new rule from the Biden administration, federal prosecutors were essentially prohibited from seizing communications records unless in the context of national security threats or other extreme and specific cases.

With the resumption of old policy though with this new Trump administration rule, the federal government can seize phone records or other materials from journalists so long as those records or materials pertain to the leaked information. According to the memo issued by Attorney General Pam Bondi, the change is motivated in light of making it easier for the DOJ to track and respond to leaked information. Bondi wrote, Safeguarding classified, privileged, and other sensitive information is essential to effective governance and law enforcement. Federal employees intentionally leaking sensitive information to the media undermines the ability of the DOJ

to uphold the rule of law, protect civil rights, and keep America safe. This conduct is illegal and wrong, and it must stop." End quote. So the policy change effectively reverses, right, that policy that was implemented under Merrick Garland in the DOJ during the Biden administration, which again, precluded the DOJ from seeking these records and compelling

testimony from members of the news media in order to identify and punish the source of improper leaks. In announcing the new rule, Attorney General Bondi criticized the Biden era policy for allowing quote, elitist leaders in government to weaponize their undeserved influence to silence perceived political opponents and advance their preferred and often erroneous narrative about significant matters of public debate. End quote. Bondi specifically mentioned gag orders on Trump as an example and said that the

perpetrators of leaks dangerously give information to foreign adversaries. So the new policy states that the news media must comply with subpoenas, court orders, and search warrants to provide information about leaks. However, the policy is to be used, according to Bondi, as a last resort when essential to a successful investigation or prosecution for the purpose of understanding the investigative techniques that journalists use during news gatherings. Bondi affirmed the idea that, quote, a free and independent press is vital to the functioning

of our democracy and stated that the DOJ will continue to employ procedural protections to limit the use of compulsory legal process to obtain information from or records of members of the new media. Whether this new policy can apply to news media must consider the following. One, whether there is a reasonable belief that crime has occurred and that the information could help a successful prosecution, two, whether prosecutors have already tried all reasonable attempts to get information through alternative means, and three, whether absent a threat to national security, the integrity of the investigation, or bodily harm, the government has attempted to negotiate with the affected member of the news media. Bonnie's memo comes as she is preparing to investigate three suspected

information leakers identified last week by National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard. Last month, Gabbard wrote on X that there was a leak of information on Israel and Iran that came from within the US intelligence community. Let's take our first break here and I will be right back. 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. Let's talk about what's going on at Paramount Global because there are quite a few things to cover here, multiple stories in one if you will. So this entire story relates to Paramount Global ending their DEI initiatives, but there's actually a bigger picture here and that is this. Paramount Global is trying to merge with Skydance Media and they have to get that merger approved by the FCC. So you may have seen headlines, which we'll talk about in a minute, but some of these headlines say things like Paramount and CBS2 and DEI initiatives.

But those headlines are actually part of a bigger picture. So there are three components to this story. One, there's a lawsuit and a settlement, which we'll talk about. Two, a memo from Paramount from back in February. And three, most recently, the executive producer of 60 Minutes resigned. We'll start with the lawsuit first. We'll work our way to the resignation, and it'll all make sense by the end of it.

We'll wrap it all up in a bow, so it's all one story. There's just multiple components. On February 29th, a freelance writer, this is actually February 29th of last year, I believe, if not 2023. A freelance writer and script coordinator named Brian Benneker filed a lawsuit against Paramount Global, CBS Entertainment,

and CBS Studios. CBS is a key property of Paramount Global. Benneker is a white straight man who worked on CBS's Seal Team show from 2017 to 2024. In the lawsuit, he claims that despite being praised for his work by a showrunner, he was consistently passed up for staff positions by less qualified individuals.

He argued that only people who were members of favored hiring groups like non-whites, LGBTQ, and females were given promotions. Notably in 2021, CBS CEO George Cheeks set a goal of all primetime writers' rooms becoming 40% staffed by Black, Indigenous, and people of color. Benneker claimed that this policy violated civil rights laws and led to employment discrimination. CBS tried to argue that the First Amendment protected its hiring decisions and therefore the lawsuit should be dismissed. However, that attempt was denied. Fast forward to last week and the

lawsuit was settled. Per the agreement, Paramount and CBS agreed to end some of their DEI policies, including numerical goals and quotas related to race, ethnicity, sex, or gender. They agreed to stop collecting demographic data on applicants. And they agreed to remove a 5% funding bonus for advancing DEI goals. So that's the lawsuit and settlement portion of the story. That I saw some headlines just specifically pertaining to that component. But before that lawsuit was even settled back in February, about a month after President Trump took office, Paramount Global had already, it sent a memo to its employees and staff

informing them that the company's DEI policies would be coming to an end in order to comply with President Trump's executive order. And these changes included no longer setting numerical goals related to race, ethnicity, sex, or gender, no longer collecting statistical data regarding job applicants, things of that nature. So even before that lawsuit was settled that we just talked about, Paramount Global was ending its DEI policies. But why? Well, as they said in the memo, right, to comply with Trump's executive order, but

it's bigger than that. Paramount Global is trying to merge with another media company called Skydance Media. In order to merge, they have to get approval from the Federal Communications Commission. As we know, the current administration is doing what it can to disband any and all DEI policies within the federal government, as well as government contractors. In fact, FCC chairman Brendan Carr has said that the FCC is prepared to block any mergers with companies that promote DEI policies. The FCC has already launched probes

into other companies like Comcast. And remember, Paramount is currently about to start mediation with the Trump administration over allegations that CBS News favorably edited a 60 minutes interview with Kamala Harris leading up to the 2024 election. So Paramount right now is doing whatever it has to do to get in the good graces of the FCC

and get this merger approved. And that means, yes, doing away with DEI programs, but also more. So that takes us to the third component of this story, which is the resignation of the executive producer of 60 Minutes. Last Tuesday, 60 Minutes executive producer Bill Owens announced his resignation. Bill Owens worked with CBS News for 37 years and with 60 Minutes specifically for 26 years. 60 Minutes is broadcasted on CBS News.

As we've covered, CBS is owned by Paramount Global. At the end of last night's 60 Minutes episode, the host of the show, Scott Pelley, shared a statement about their parent company Paramount and the resignation of the show's executive producer Bill Owens. Pelley said that Owens resigned after Paramount, quote, began to supervise our content in new ways, end quote. And while Pelly noted that no stories have been blocked, he said that Owens felt as if he had lost quote, the independence that honest journalism requires, end quote.

In a memo sent to his staff, Bill Owens wrote quote, over the past months, it has become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it to make independent decisions based on what was right for 60 minutes, right for the audience. So having defended the show and what we stand for from every angle over time with everything I could, I am stepping aside so the show can move forward. End quote. So it's clear from that memo that Bill Owens is resigning due to a loss of independence with the show. But where is that coming from? So this, as you can probably tell, this all comes back to the same conversation. But there are some specific recent situations that have seemingly led to Owens decision. First, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, the Trump administration alleges that CBS News favorably

edited a 60 minutes interview with Kamala Harris leading up to the election. That lawsuit was filed after two soundbites, one broadcasted on 60 minutes and another broadcasted on Face the Nation, depicted Harris giving two different responses to the same question about Israel. Trump has argued that CBS edited the clips to make Harris look better. CBS says that the clips were edited for time purposes. Trump has since wrote on Truth Social that 60 Minutes is not a news show,

but a dishonest political operative simply disguised as news and must be responsible for what they have done and what they are doing. He said they should lose their license and said hopefully the FCC, as headed by its highly respected chairman, Brendan Carr, will impose the maximum fines and punishment, which is substantial for their unlawful and illegal behavior.

Now, as I said, this case is about to move into mediation, which means they will be working to find a settlement. But keep in mind our discussion about how Paramount is trying to please the FCC in order to get their merger with Skydance Media approved because some are concerned that this motive will influence how Paramount ultimately treats mediation and the final settlement that it comes to. Bill Owens has also faced some critiques on his editorial decisions in recent months. In January, Sherry

Redstone, the controlling shareholder of Paramount, complained to CBS executives about a 60-minute segment on the war between Israel and Hamas. The day after that complaint, Paramount appointed a longtime CBS producer to a new role which would oversee standards helping to vet stories and journalistic practices. In fact, at the end of last night's 60 Minutes episode when the host addressed Owens' resignation, he said, quote, stories we've pursued for 57 years are often controversial. Lately, the Israel-Gaza war and the Trump administration. Bill made sure they were accurate and fair. He was tough that way, end quote. So those are some of the instances that led to Owens's resignation.

To wrap this all up in a bow, because we've talked about a lawsuit and a settlement, we've talked about the resignation, and we've talked about the DEI policies, the pending merger approval. There's all these components, right? But all of those components make up this bigger picture, which is that Paramount is wanting to get its merger

with Skydance approved by the FCC. So it is doing what it feels it should do to get that done. Now, the reason I included this as a story is because this was actually submitted by many of you as a requested topic in today's episode, but also because as I've kind of said in multiple different ways throughout this episode, you'll see various headlines.

So you'll see, you know, Bill Owens resigned. You'll see Paramount scrapping DEI policies. You'll see lawsuit against CBS and Paramount settles. All of those headlines are different stories, but they all play into one theme. So hopefully we're all on the same page with that. Now we can move on to some more immigration controversy. Last week, reports emerged

that the Trump administration deported United States citizen children, ranging in age from two to seven, with one of those children having a rare form of metastatic cancer. Administration officials are now saying the reports are misleading, so let's talk about it. We'll start with the original reports and then we'll talk about the administration's response.

On Friday morning, the National Immigration Project announced that the New Orleans Ice Field Office, quote, deported at least two families, including two mothers and their minor children, three of whom are US citizen children aged two, four, and seven. So we have one mother who was deported with her two-year-old. That mother is also pregnant. And then we have another mother who was deported with her four-year-old and her seven-year-old. That four-year-old is the one that had been receiving treatment for metastatic cancer. So two families at issue here.

Both families were detained when the mothers attended meetings with officials in Louisiana as part of the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program, ISAP. This is a program offered by ICE as an alternative to detention for individuals in immigration proceedings. In other words, it allows individuals who have committed an immigration violation to remain in the community while their cases are pending. Those that are released into the community in this ISAP program usually have enhanced supervision, whether that be GPS tracking, over the phone reporting,

unannounced home visits, and in some cases, ankle bracelets. But there's also these check-ins in person where the individual has to go to a meeting with their contracted ICE agent. The purpose of these meetings is for the agent to determine if that person has been complying with the agreed-upon terms of their release. They usually happen about once a month and they typically take place at the ICE office that is closest to the individual. So in both of these cases the women were attending ISAP meetings near where they live when they were taken into custody

The first family was detained on April 22nd the second family on April 24th The first family which is the family consisting of the mother the pregnant mother and the two-year-old Appeared in front of an immigration judge who actually set a May 16th hearing Regarding the child's deportation because the judge noted that the mother was undocumented and subject to deportation, but that it's illegal and unconstitutional to deport or detain for deportation or recommend deportation of a United States citizen. Now, despite that hearing being set for May 16th, the mother was deported and brought her child with her. The second family, which consisted of a mother, the 4-year-old, and the 7-year-old, appeared

at an ISAP check-in on the 24th after the family's attorney, Aaron Hebert, was told to bring all three family members into the ICE office along with the passports of the two children. Upon arrival, Hebert said she was not allowed to accompany the family to the ICE office along with the passports of the two children. Upon arrival, Hebert said she was not allowed to accompany the family to the meeting, and about 20 to 30 minutes after arrival, officials told Hebert that the family had been detained but did not tell her where the family would be taken.

Hebert later learned that two ICE officers were waiting for the family at that appointment. So Hebert leaves, she goes to ICE's New Orleans Field Office and files a stay of removal that she had prepared in advance of her client's ISAP meeting. But early Friday morning, less than 24 hours later, the family was put on a plane and taken to Honduras. Now, the issue here, according to the family's attorney, the NIP, those that oppose these deportations, is the lack of due process, right? As we've talked about before, all people in this country are entitled to due process regardless of

citizenship status. In one of these cases, the family was deported within 24 hours of being detained, no hearing, no access to their attorney. In the other case, the family did get a hearing, but there was a pending hearing for May 16th to determine what would happen with the child. On the other side of the due process argument though, we know that both mothers had previously missed a court proceeding and consequently had removal orders issued against them. So per usual, you have people clinging to the lack of a hearing following detention and others clinging to the removal orders issued against them. Now, the other issue here is the children, right? The children are US citizens, so they cannot be deported. But in the last few days, administration officials have spoken

out against these allegations that young children with US citizenship were, quote-unquote, deported. But in the last few days, administration officials have spoken out against these allegations that young children with US citizenship were quote-unquote deported. Secretary of State Marco Rubio criticized the media's coverage calling it misleading. He said quote, you guys make it sound like ICE agents kicked down the door and grabbed a two-year-old and threw him on a plane. That's misleading. That's just not true. If those children are US citizens They can come back into the United States if their father or someone here who wants to assume them Ultimately who were deported was their mothers who were here illegally the children just went with their mothers Endquote he went on to say that an illegal parent has two choices one quote Of course, you can take your child whether they're a citizen or not because it's your child.

Or two, quote, yes, you can go but your child must stay behind, end quote. He said that that, the second option would also create false headlines which would read something like, quote, U.S. holding hostage, two-year-old, four-year-old, seven-year-old while mother deported, end quote. He emphasized that it's the parents

who decide where their children get to go. In court filings, the administration said the mother of the two-year-old had requested to take her child with her to Honduras, citing a handwritten note written by her in Spanish. However, a lawyer at the National Immigration Project said neither mother was given a choice. Borders are Tom Homan insisted that the children's deported parents made the decision to bring their children along with them, not the Trump administration. He said, quote, Children aren't deported.

The mother chose to take the children with her. End quote. He criticized the parents saying, quote, If you're here illegally and you choose to have a US citizen child, that's on you. He added that that's not on the administration and that quote, having a US citizen child doesn't make you immune from our laws of the country. End quote. He also said that allowing a mother to take her children with her is the administration's way of keeping families together. It was at a press briefing this morning when Holman said, quote, when a parent

says I want my two year old baby to go with me, we made that happen. They weren't deported." End quote. So that's what you need to know there per usual. And as it stands, there are conflicting stories and narratives from both sides. But hopefully as time goes on, we will find out more details and we will get a little more information and clarification. Let's take our second and final break here and I will be right back. Welcome back. Sticking with immigration for one more story, at a press briefing this morning, Caroline Leavitt announced that President Trump would be signing two executive orders later today,

one on law and order and another targeting sanctuary cities. Notably, neither order has been signed or uploaded to the White House's website as of the time I'm recording this episode so I can only tell you what we know from the press briefing. The first executive order will quote strengthen and unleash America's law enforcement to pursue criminals and protect innocent citizens and the second order will center around protecting American communities from criminal aliens. That second order directs the Attorney General and the

Secretary of Homeland Security to publish a list of state and local jurisdictions that obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Apparently some outlets have gotten a hold of that second executive order, so we do know a bit more about that one based on what's being reported. As Levitt said, the order will direct the Attorney General and Homeland Security Secretary to identify the states and cities that are not complying with federal immigration law. And the idea is that these jurisdictions could lose federal funding and and possibly face criminal and civil lawsuits if they refuse to change their laws or practices in accordance with federal law. The order

asks that this list of jurisdictions be completed within a month. Now, we have already seen this issue playing out in the court system, right? Last week, a federal judge in California blocked the Trump administration's efforts to withhold federal funding from 16 counties and cities in California that have not cooperated with Trump's immigration policies. So this order only adds to that battle. And eventually we might see this issue before the Supreme Court, right? Because the question ultimately is, who has the say when it comes to immigration policy?

Do states have to comply with federal policy or can states create their own policies? And more than that, if states don't abide by federal law when it comes to immigration, can states be denied federal funding? One of the two executive orders that will be signed today, and I'm not sure which one because like I said they're not released yet, we just know this information based off of what's being reported, so I can confirm this once we have the actual orders. But what we know from the reports is that one of the two executive orders directs the DOJ to pursue civil rights lawsuits against cities or states that favor illegal immigrants

over US citizens. For instance, providing immigrants in state tuition rates at public universities, but denying those lower rates to out-of-state US citizens or maybe policies, rules, laws, whatever it might be, treating immigrants more leniently in criminal cases or sentencing than US citizens. According to the Wall Street Journal, at least 25 states have adopted laws like these. So again, once I have my hands on those orders, I can let you know if there's more substance there that you should be aware of or if I need to provide any clarification, but that is what we know as of now. Now let's do some quick hitters. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the Trump administration will take no action to annex Canada. He described Trump's views as an

unimportant bluster. President Trump signed an executive order titled Strengthening the Probationary Periods in the Federal Service. The purpose of the order is to ensure that federal agencies make better use of probationary and trial periods. In part, it requires federal agencies to certify that a probationary employee's continued employment

is in the public interest before granting tenure. That determination would take into consideration the employee's performance and conduct, the needs and interests of the agency, and whether the employee's continued conduct would advance the organizational goals and efficiency of the agency or government. Treasury Secretary Scott Bissent said today that it is up to China to de-escalate the trade war. He also said that all aspects of the government are in contact with China, despite China continuing to deny tariff talks.

Three polls released Sunday imply that a majority of Americans disapprove of Trump's handling of his presidency after the first 100 days. A poll by NBC found a 45% approval rate, while CNN SSRS found a 41% approval rate, and the Washington Post ABC News poll found just 39%. Now, many of you asked me whether you can trust these polls, so I want to give you some tips when looking at polls, you know, what now or in the future. Obviously, you want respected nonpartisan pollsters. It's hard to find completely nonpartisan polls these days. So tip number two is to look at the sample size and diversity.

Good polls have at least 1,000 respondents and sample across age, race, gender, region, and political affiliation. And then tip number three is a good margin of error. You typically want to see a margin of error plus or minus 3%, bigger margins mean less reliability. So as an example, we can look at the Washington Post ABC poll, which found the lowest approval rating.

That poll took a random national sample of about 2,400 adults with a partisan division of 30, 30, 29, Republicans, or sorry, Democrats, Republicans, independents. Those results have a margin of error of two percentage points. So that poll meets the criteria, but I do want to say that it's important to look at a poll's overall results, right? Question by question, because maybe the overall approval rating is down, but the approval of how he handled certain issues is up. Overall, polls can be good. It's just not always beneficial to look at one number alone.

Moving on, as of this morning, on the lawn of the White House, you will find posters of quote, the worst illegal immigrant criminals arrested so far during Trump's presidency. The posters show a picture of the person with the word arrested at the top and then at the bottom it says what they're accused of. So some of the crimes listed include distribution of fentanyl, rape of a child, and murder. And a federal judge sentenced former representative George Santos to more than seven years in prison, two years of supervised release, and to pay nearly $375,000 in restitution for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft.

This case results in his expulsion from Congress in 2023. He pled guilty to the two felony charges in August of 2024, and he has to report to prison by July 25th. And now it's time for critical thinking. As a reminder, this segment is not meant to be too complex. It is not meant to stump you. It is just an exercise for our brains in a world where we are constantly told how and what to think.

For today's critical thinking segment, I want to revisit Judge Dugan's arrest. So the first question is always, what are your initial thoughts? Are you in favor of Judge Dugan's arrest or are you against it and why? That why is incredibly important. For the second question though, we're going to dig a little deeper. I want you to consider the power dynamics at play here. And the purpose of this part of the exercise is to think about different scenarios where power dynamics shift and how those shifts in power dynamics affect our perception of obstruction and concealment, right?

Because Judge Dugan is facing two charges. The first is obstruction. The second is concealment. So in this case, we have a judge, a federal agency, ICE, and an undocumented individual facing potential deportation. Consider this shift in power dynamics first. Imagine instead of a judge, it was a private US citizen that was accused of concealing Flores Ruiz. So Flores Ruiz is charged with three misdemeanor charges. He has a warrant out for his arrest and he faces deportation. Would your perception of concealing or obstructing change if it were a private U.S. citizen helping

him evade ICE agents rather than a judge? If so, in what way? And if not, why not? The second shift is this. What if instead of the private US citizen concealing Flores Ruiz, the US citizen was concealing someone who was trying to hide from a big corporation? Like maybe this is a whistleblower, right? So it's a US citizen, he or she is a whistleblower, and there's another private US citizen trying to help this whistleblower hide out in his or her house. Would your understanding of obstructing or concealing change in that context? And of course we have to note that that situation's

a little different, right? Because there's been no crime committed, whistleblowing is not a crime. But the purpose is to think about different scenarios where power dynamics shift and how those shifts affects our perception of obstruction and concealment. That is what I have for you today. Have a fantastic next couple of days

and I will talk to you again on Thursday.