UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (5/1/25): Trump's Impeachment Articles, Leaked Memo Allows Warrantless ICE Searches, More Talk About Martial Law, Trump's ABC Interview Fact-Checked, and More.

Episode Date: May 1, 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. SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S ⁠FREE WEEKLY NEWSLETTER⁠. In today's episode: Leaked ICE Memo Authorizes Warrantless Searches (0:54) DHS Conducts Raid on Home of US Citizens (10:09) Judge Orders Release of Columbia Student/Protester (12:12) Columbia University Janitors Sue On-Campus Protesters (14:38) Judge Says Trump Admin Must Continue Funding Legal Services for Unaccompanied Migrant Children (16:04) Representatives Files Seven Articles of Impeachment Against Trump (20:01) Congress Passes Take It Down Act Prohibiting Publication of Non-Consensual, Explicit Online Images (24:01) Trump Signs Executive Order Mandating English Language for Truck Drivers (26:41) Trump Signs Executive Order Allowing Military to Assist Local Law Enforcement; Does This Mean Martial Law? (31:34) Fact-Checking Trump's 100-Day Interview with ABC News (34:44) Supreme Court to Decide Whether State Taxpayers Will Fund Religious Charter School (45:34) GDP Contracts; Here's What It Means (50:08) Quick Hitters: Waltz to Exit, New Protection Order Against Abrego Garcia, Pepsi to Remove Dyes, US-Ukraine Reach Mineral Deal, Tesla Says It Didn't Search for New CEO, HHS to Require Placebo Trials, Hegseth Warns Iran (53:28) 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

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, May 1st. Let's talk about some news. But first, I do have a new newsletter going out tomorrow morning. I've told you guys about it before. It's my latest passion project. It features quick hitters in not just politics, but also pop culture, business, and health news. Readers have been absolutely loving it, so be sure to check it out by clicking the subscribe link in the show notes of this episode,

or you can simply search Unbiased Society on Substack. That newsletter will show up in your inbox at 6 a.m. Eastern time tomorrow, but you can always catch it after the fact on Substack if you are not subscribed in time. We do have a longer than usual episode today, so without further ado, let's get into today's stories. Starting with this leaked ICE memo that appears to allow warrantless searches for members

of Trendy Aragwa. We'll first talk about what that memo says and then we'll get into the potential legal challenges and a little discussion about the Fourth Amendment. So last week, this internal directive was, or I should say it wasn't issued last week, it was leaked last week. It was issued by Attorney General Pam Bondi.

The directive was actually first issued back in March, on March 14th. So law enforcement has presumably been abiding by this directive since that time. The directive has the subject line, guidance for implementing the Alien Enemies Act, and it says that it seeks to, quote, provide guidance on implementing the president's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. As we've talked about many times now, President Trump previously issued a presidential proclamation invoking a law known as the Alien Enemies Act. And interestingly, that proclamation was signed one day after the directive that we are talking

about here. Now, the Alien Enemies Act gives the president the authority to detain or deport any citizen from an enemy nation if that enemy nation has invaded the United States or is at war with the United States. What the president's proclamation argues is that because the Trande Aragua gang, it's a Venezuelan gang, has invaded the United States. The president has the direct authority to, or the authority to direct law enforcement to detain and deport any Venezuelan citizen over the age of 14 who is a member of Trende Aragua. Also though, and this is a portion of the proclamation we haven't talked about as much, the proclamation instructed the attorney

general to consult with the secretary of Homeland Security and issue any guidance necessary to effectuate the prompt apprehension, detention, and removal of all of the people described above. So in anticipation of that proclamation and in accordance with that directive, this DOJ directive was issued. And what it does is it outlines seven steps that law enforcement is to take when apprehending and or removing an individual from the United States. Step one, specifically under the Alien Enemies Act,

I should specify that. Step one is to validate alien enemy status and complete a form for each suspected alien enemy. If an individual is at least 14 years old, not a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States, is a citizen of Venezuela, and is a member of Trende Aragua, an officer will validate that person as an alien enemy by signing off on a form. A supervisor then must review that determination and approve it by also signing off. In that supervisory review, the supervisor is to consider all relevant facts. So this can

include supporting documentation, identity verification documents, as well as statements made by the alien regarding his or her connection to Trende Aragwa. Now you might be wondering how can an officer definitively say that a person is a member of Trende Aragwa for validation purposes? And I will tell you on the form there is basically a point system. For instance, if the subject participates in criminal activity, so narcotics trafficking, human trafficking, etc. With other members of Trende Aragwa, that subject receives six points. If the subject is part of a part of group photos with two or more known members of Trende Aragwa, the subject receives

two points. If the subject self-identifies as a member or associate of Trende Aragwa, that's 10 points. So there are different actions, characteristics, documents, and communications that receive a certain number of points. Those individuals that receive eight points or higher are deemed to be an alien enemy and will receive a warrant for removal. The issuance of the warrant is step two in the seven-step process. The directive says that the alien is to be provided with a notice and warrant which says in part, quote, you have been determined to be an alien enemy subject to apprehension,

restraint and removal from the United States. You are not entitled to a hearing, appeal or judicial review of this notice and warrant of apprehension and removal. Step three is deconfliction. So that says to the extent possible before apprehending an individual, officers should conduct standard conflict checks to ensure that apprehending and removing that person

is consistent with the interests of justice. Now, step four is where we get into the warrant issue that everyone is talking about. So first, what step four says is that after a supervisor issues this warrant and deconfliction is complete, officers should use all available tools to immediately apprehend validated alien enemies

wherever they are in the United States, whether that's inside their homes or inside their workplaces or somewhere else. But then the directive says, quote, while a judicial or administrative arrest warrant is not necessary to apprehend a validated alien enemy to perfect apprehension operation plans, officers should consider consulting federal prosecutors in the relevant district to obtain criminal search warrants and or criminal arrest warrants." End quote. In other words, officers

are encouraged to get a warrant first, if possible, to conduct these apprehensions safely and efficiently, but it's not necessary per this directive. So critics argue that this provision, which essentially allows warrantless searches, violates the Fourth Amendment. Now, the Fourth Amendment protects all people in the United States regardless of citizenship status from unreasonable searches and seizures. Supporters of the directive, on the other hand, argue that because this directive is based on the president's constitutional wartime powers and the Alien Enemies Act, which gives the government this broad authority to act in times of invasion or conflict, this

directive is a necessary response to a specific threat and helps bypass red tape when immediate action is needed. To speak a little more about that Fourth Amendment warrantless search issue though, I want to clarify that a warrant is a legal document that authorizes law enforcement to take action that would otherwise be illegal, right? Normally ICE needs a judicial warrant or voluntary consent to enter someone's home.

An administrative ICE warrant does not cut it under current law. To fill you in on the difference there, a judicial warrant is an official court order signed by a judge or a magistrate that authorizes a search of a private property, seizure, or arrest based on probable cause. So with judicial warrants, law enforcement has to prove to a judge that probable cause. So with judicial warrants, law enforcement has to prove to a judge that probable cause exists to justify the issuance of a warrant. An ICE administrative warrant on the other hand is different in that it's a document that shows an immigration officer's authority to arrest a person that is

suspected of violating immigration law and it's signed off on by an immigration officer like an ICE agent or an immigration judge. It does not go through the court system and it does not give ICE officials authority to enter a place where someone enjoys a reasonable expectation of privacy like a home. So generally speaking under the law to enter someone's house whether you're an immigration officer or you're a police officer you need either a judicial warrant or voluntary consent. Now, there are exceptions, of course, to the warrant requirement. Some of these exceptions include extended circumstances, items that are in plain view, a search incident to arrest, consent, special needs.

There are exceptions. This DOJ directive is essentially creating another exception when a person has been internally validated by ICE agents as an alien enemy. So naturally this raises constitutional questions. We will likely see this challenged in the courts as it's used, and I'll be sure to keep you updated. It's just a really interesting crossroad of, you know, national security and constitutional rights. And it'll be up to the

courts to determine whether this type of warrant waiver is permissible in situations where the president invokes the Alien Enemies Act. And really quick on a related note, a Trump-appointed judge today ruled that the Trump administration does not possess the lawful authority under the Alien Enemies Act to detain or deport suspected Trendy Aragon gang members. I didn't have time to get too deep into that story, but I did want to make you all aware of it. You know, we've been talking so much about the Alien Enemies Act, so I thought that this ruling was worth noting. However, the administration will likely appeal it, so the fight over the Alien Enemies Act certainly isn't over. Okay, this next story is related. So when I posted a question box to Instagram a couple of days ago,

I asked what stories you wanted to hear about. In today's episode, a lot of you said this Oklahoma ICE raid. So let's talk about what we know. On April 24th, 20 armed federal agents conducted an immigration raid with a court authorized search warrant on a house in Oklahoma. Inside was a family of US citizens. The mother, who is being referred to as Marissa, said the men identified themselves as US Marshals, ICE, and FBI agents. However, the DHS has since said it was only ICE agents. The FBI and US Marshals, ICE, and FBI agents. However, the DHS has since said it was only ICE agents, the FBI and US Marshals were not involved. Marissa said that after being told the agents had a warrant, she was forced outside into the rain with her husband and three daughters while the officers searched their home. A local news outlet reported that the mother and daughters were forced

to stand outside in their underwear. Marissa said that the agents took laptops, cell phones, and cash as evidence—cash which she said is the family's life savings. She asked the agents when they would get their personal belongings back. The agent told her it could be days or it could be months, but the agents left without giving the family instructions as to how to retrieve their items. Since then, the DHS said that the raid was a planned raid and that the agents were looking for the previous residents. Basically, right address, wrong people.

According to the DHS, the court authorized raid was part of a larger human smuggling investigation, which is currently being federally prosecuted in Oklahoma. And it's been going on for four years. So far in that case, eight Guatemala nationals have been going on for four years. So far in that case eight Guatemalan nationals have been indicted for their roles in the case and that's who the federal agents were after. So records show that the house that was raided is owned by a woman named Cidia Marleni Lima Lopez who

is a major player in the smuggling case and the US citizens that live there currently you know had apparently just recently moved in. So that is what we know about the story at this point. Some immigration adjacent news. A court ordered the release of a Columbia student and protester named Mohsen Madhawi, who was detained by immigration officials when he arrived for an immigration interview last month. According to Madawi's attorney, he had passed his naturalization test. He

was administered the oath to become a U.S. citizen, and he was subsequently detained by Homeland Security and has been in detention ever since. So we've been talking a lot about a different Columbia student and protester named Mahmoud Khalil. Khalil and Madawi co-founded a Palestinian student society on Columbia's campus following the start of the Israel-Hamas war. Madawi also helped create the Columbia University apartheid divest, though he did supposedly step back from leadership before the start of the on-campus encampments and the occupation of Hamilton Hall. Following Madhawi's detainment, the Trump administration argued that his presence in the United States is a threat to foreign policy and national security interests. They argued that they had

evidence of him admitting to being involved in and supporting anti-Semitic acts of violence and that he had an interest in a facility with firearms for that purpose. So one report that the administration cited to was from 2015 in which a Vermont gun shop owner claimed that Madhawi told him that he used to build machine guns to quote kill Jews while he was in Palestine and quote. An FBI investigation into Madhawi was launched that same year, but no other evidence was found and the investigation was closed. Madhawi's attorneys maintain that authorities detained him due to his pro-Palestine anti-Israel rhetoric and that his detainment is a violation of his First Amendment rights. So yesterday, a judge released Madhawi on

bail allowing him to keep his permanent resident status in Vermont and return to New York City to attend school and graduate from Columbia. In ruling that way, the judge said that he did not believe Madhavi is a risk to the public or likely to flee. The judge compared these recent immigration detentions to the Red Scare of 1919 and 1920 when widespread fear of communists led to mass deportations and crackdowns on dissent. The Trump administration requested that Maddawi's release be delayed by seven days, but the judge refused that request. Speaking of Columbia University, two Columbia University janitors have filed a federal lawsuit against more than 40 individuals,

including students and alleged outside agitators, who participated in the occupation of Hamilton Hall on April 30, 2024. The lawsuit claims that the protesters assaulted the janitors, held them against their will, and subjected them to anti-Semitic slurs, calling them Jew lovers and Zionists, despite neither janitor being Jewish. According to the complaint, both men suffered physical injuries and experienced event-related post-traumatic stress disorder, rendering them unable to work.

Both are currently relying on periodic workers' compensation, which they claim is insufficient to cover their medical expenses and basic needs. The lawsuit alleges that the occupation of Hamilton Hall was highly coordinated, referencing hand-drawn maps distributed by protesters, as well as protesters bringing in food and other supplies for the occupation. One of the janitors says protesters first attempted to bribe him, but when he refused to leave the hall, they assaulted him and one of the protesters threatened to bring in additional people to further quote, pummel him. The janitors claimed they attempted to escape the building, but all exits were heavily barricaded

and as a result, they feared for their lives. The suit accuses the defendants of civil battery, assault, and conspiracy to violate civil rights. Alright, let's take our first break here. I will be right back. Welcome back. A federal judge in California ruled this week that the Trump administration must continue funding legal services for unaccompanied minor children who are in the country illegally. Let's back up those so we can get the full picture.

A couple of months ago, the Trump administration issued a stop work order that halted a federal program which funded legal representation for unaccompanied immigrant children. Here in the United States we do have laws and agreements that offer protection for immigrant minors to ensure they receive safe and fair treatment, which has historically also included access to legal counsel. Under federal law, migrants are not guaranteed the right to free legal representation like US citizens are, but in the past, federal funds have been allocated

to nonprofit groups like the Acacia Center for Justice to provide lawyers for migrant children, specifically because of these laws and agreements that we have in place protecting children. So when the administration issued this stop work order, the administration got pushback and critics of the move argued that it violated the government's legal responsibilities. In light of that pushback, the administration went ahead and rescinded the stop work order, which temporarily restored funding for these legal

services. Not too long after though, the federal contract for the Acacia Center was allowed to expire. This was in late March. Consequently, legal groups sued the administration, arguing that cutting the legal aid program without a lawful replacement endangered children's rights and safety, and that under a law called the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, the government is obligated to provide unaccompanied children with legal counsel to protect from mistreatment, exploitation, and trafficking. Accordingly, they sought what's called a temporary injunction to force the administration to continue the program while

the litigation was pending, and that was granted. The Trump administration, though, argued in this case that there is no federal law explicitly requiring the government to pay for lawyers for immigrant children in civil immigration cases, and unlike criminal cases, there is no automatic right to government-funded counsel. The administration also argued that because the lack of funding was due to the expiration of a contract, which was a fiscal and administrative decision, this wasn't a targeted policy change. Nonetheless, the judge ruled this week the administration must continue funding legal services for unaccompanied migrant children and must reinstate support for organizations like the Acacia Center. The judge found that the government's abrupt termination

of funding violated its obligations under law and under a 2024 Office of Refugee Resettlement Rule, both of which require the government to ensure legal services for unaccompanied children. The judge emphasized that terminating funding without a plan to ensure continuity and representation could jeopardize the children's ability to navigate complex legal proceedings. And this lack of representation could lead to unfair deportations and increased vulnerability

to exploitation. As a final note here, I do want to mention that we spoke about a similar decision in the beginning of May, and I don't want you to get confused. So I do want to differentiate really quick. In early April, the judge in this case said the administration had to continue providing legal funding for unaccompanied migrant children while the lawsuit was pending. That was that temporary injunction we talked about.

But now this decision is a final decision, meaning arguments have been heard, the case has been decided, the administration must continue providing funding in perpetuity. However, the administration can appeal this decision to the appellate court. So we'll have to see what happens on appeal, but that's the difference in the two decisions. Like I said, I know I spoke about it in April, so I just didn't want you to get confused

here. Switching gears a little bit to these articles of impeachment that were filed against President Trump this week, another popular topic request. Earlier this week a Michigan representative submitted articles of impeachment against Trump and to give you a little bit of context, most of us know right, impeachment is the constitutional process by which a government official can be charged with misconduct and potentially removed from office. Per the Constitution, one can be impeached for either treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Impeachment proceedings start in the House, which can charge a government official

with impeachment by approving impeachment articles in a simple majority vote. And then if impeached, the articles of impeachment are sent to the Senate where the official will face trial. So following a trial in the Senate, the Senate can either vote to acquit or convict the impeached official. Conviction requires a two thirds vote of the Senate. And that is the point at which an official

would be removed from office, but that's incredibly hard to achieve, which is why in many cases we'll see officials get impeached but not convicted. Now the document introduced by this Michigan representative includes seven articles of impeachment. We'll quickly touch on what those articles allege. So article one accuses Trump of obstruction of justice, violation of due process, and

a breach of the duty to faithfully execute laws. This stems from allegations that Trump allegedly directed DOJ officials to abuse their official powers, directed the defiance of binding court orders, and directed the violation of laws enacted by Congress. Article 2 claims Trump unlawfully seized powers which were explicitly granted to Congress by withholding congressionally approved funds and attempting to dismantle congressionally mandated agencies like the Education Department and USAID. That article also cites to the creation of DOGE and says that Trump utilized DOGE to

unlawfully block funds to dozens of federal agencies. Article 3 argues Trump abused trade powers and engaged in international aggression by imposing unreasonable tariffs on foreign nations and threatening foreign nations with invasion, the annexation of territory, and the occupation of sovereign territory through the use of military action. This is in reference to Trump's comments about the annexation of Canada, military action within Mexico, the annexation of Greenland, the Panama Canal, and the Gaza Strip.

Article 4 argues Trump violated the First Amendment by attempting to suppress dissent and opposition by directing his subordinates to retaliate against certain law firms and attorneys, retaliating against critics and political opponents, and threatening media outlets, current and former officeholders, and advocacy organizations. Article 5 accuses Trump of creating an unlawful office in violation of the Constitution. That would be Doge. And finally, Article 7 accuses Trump of tyranny, alleging that Trump sought to establish himself as a tyrant, dictator, and autocrat over the people of the United States, usurping unto

himself the constitutional powers of Congress, the courts, and the states. So those are the seven articles. Keep in mind the likelihood that the House will vote to impeach Trump is very low because Republicans do have control of the House. There are currently 220 Republicans in the House, 218 Democrats, which would mean that roughly three Republicans would have to join all Democrats in voting for impeachment. And notably, three House Democrats actually asked to be removed as co-sponsors of the impeachment resolution following revelations that the resolution

wasn't actually fully vetted by Democratic leadership or the House Judiciary Committee. So it's highly, highly unlikely that this goes anywhere. This is the first attempt to impeach Trump during his current presidency. However, Texas Representative Al Green has similarly said he will soon be filing his own articles of impeachment against Trump.

Speaking of congressional matters, early this week, the House passed the Take It Down Act, which is more formally known as the tools to address known exploitation by immobilizing technological deepfakes on websites and networks act. Long name. In short, what it does is it prohibits the online publication of both real and computer-generated images of individuals without their consent. This bill passed the House in a 409-to-2 vote, with the two no's coming from Republicans.

The bill was first introduced in the Senate in April of last year, but it failed to pass the House before the end of the congressional session, which meant that the bill automatically died. So in January, with this newional session, which meant that the bill automatically died. So in January, with this new Congressional session, the bill was reintroduced, it passed the Senate unanimously in February, and then of course, as I just mentioned, it passed the House earlier this week with only two dissenters. Those two dissenters were Representative Thomas Massey and Representative Eric Burleson. Leading up to the vote, Massey wrote on X,

quote, I'm voting no because I feel this is a slippery slope ripe for abuse with unintended consequences. End quote. Burleson wrote on X that the law, quote, threatens free speech and puts encryption on the chopping block. End quote. He also said, you can't have private communication if platforms are forced to scan your messages. This is a dangerous step toward censorship. So again, the Take It Down Act prohibits the online publication of both real and computer generated explicit imagery of people without their consent. It aims to combat the non-consensual sharing of intimate content, including deep fakes,

and it establishes criminal penalties for violations. So this can be things like imprisonment, fines, or both. And it also states that similar criminal penalties will be applied to mere threats to publish intimate imagery and requires certain online platforms to remove images and videos within 48 hours after a victim's request. First Lady Melania Trump played a role in the passage of the bill. She attended a roundtable discussion at the Capitol in March to advocate for the bill's passage in the House. And other popular proponents of this bill include Taylor Swift and AOC,

who have both been targets of AI generated non-consensual images being published online. So this bill will now head to the president's desk for signature. Let's take our second break here. When we come back, we'll touch on two recent executive orders. We'll fact check Trump's interview with ABC News and much more.

Welcome back. Let's talk about some recent presidential actions, starting with the executive order titled, Enforcing Common Sense Rules of the Road for America's Truck Drivers. So this is the one that everyone's been talking about about the English language requirements. But first, let's remember that with all executive orders, each order has a policy and or a purpose and then a directive or directives for federal officials to carry out that policy and or purpose. An executive order is not the same as a law, right? It has the force of law, but it actually directs federal officials to take certain actions. It doesn't bind

citizens like a law does. So the policy of this particular order is to support America's truckers and safeguard roadways by enforcing the common-sense English language requirement and removing needless regulatory burdens that undermine the condition of America's truck drivers. According to the president, this order will help ensure a safe, secure, and efficient motor carrier industry. Before we get into the directives of the order, I want to clarify that while the media is mainly focused on the English language requirement, the order also focuses on other things like improving the working conditions of America's truck drivers and strengthening license security for what the administration calls safer operations.

So per the order, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration will work to incorporate violations of the English language proficiency into the out-of-service requirement. So that would mean that a violation of the English language proficiency requirement would result in a driver being placed out of service. The out-of-service criteria is a set of rules and standards that law enforcement and inspectors use when a commercial motor vehicle or its driver must be taken out of service due to safety violations.

This order also tasks the FMCSA to review non-US resident commercial driver's licenses to identify any unusual patterns, numbers or other irregularities, and to improve the protocols for verifying the authenticity and validity of both domestic and international commercial driving credentials. And then finally, the order tasked the Secretary of Transportation to work to improve the working

conditions of America's truck drivers by carrying out administrative, regulatory, or enforcement actions within 60 days. Now, in 1936, the Interstate Commerce Commission established an English language requirement for drivers of motor vehicles operating in interstate or foreign commerce. As it still stands today, this rule requires that operators of commercial vehicles

can read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public to understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to respond to official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records. Notably, how that rule has been enforced over time has varied. Most recently, in 2016, the Transportation Department issued a memo which removed the requirement to place drivers out of

service for violations of the English language proficiency standard. So while that 1936 rule still existed, it essentially became unenforceable in 2016 with that new memo. Trump's new executive order, though, specifically calls on the transportation secretary to rescind that 2016 memo and issue new guidance in line with this executive order, which means the old out of service rule will again be enforceable. So naturally you might ask, what does it mean to be proficient in English?

I will tell you the order defines proficiency as the ability to understand road signage and interact with agencies like traffic safety departments, border patrol, and agricultural checkpoints. Finally, who does this order apply to? What kind of drivers have to be proficient in English? Well, per the order, this specifically applies to drivers of commercial vehicles. According to the Federal Motor Carrier Vehicle Safety Administration, a commercial vehicle

is defined as any motor vehicle on a highway in interstate commerce to transport property or passengers. When that vehicle either A, has a gross weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds or a combined weight rating of 26,001 pounds, B, transports hazardous material that requires federal placarding, or C, is designed or used to transport more than eight passengers, including the driver, for compensation or more than 15 passengers if not receiving compensation for the transportation. Now that definition is important because it draws a distinction between something like Ubers, right, which aren't supposed to take more than six passengers at a time, and larger transportation vehicles like buses, which

are designed for more people and do count as commercial vehicles. The other executive order signed by the president this week that we're going to talk about is called Strengthening and Unleashing America's Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens. The stated purpose of this order is to establish best practices at the state and local level for cities to unleash high-impact local police forces, protect and defend law enforcement officers wrongly accused and abused by state or local officials, surge resources to officers in need, and to work to ensure that law enforcement officers across America focus on ending crime, not pursuing

harmful, illegal race and sex based equity policies. So to carry out that purpose, the Attorney General is to take all appropriate action to create a mechanism to provide legal resources and indemnification to law enforcement officers who unjustly incur expenses and liabilities for actions taken during the performance of their official duties to enforce the law. The Attorney General is to also work to improve police department's efficiency and protections with federal resources.

So some of these things include expanding and improving training, increasing pay and benefits, strengthening and expanding their legal protections, enhancing sentences against law enforcement officers, improving data collection, things of that nature. Now this next provision is the one that's getting the most attention and that is this. Within 90 days of the order, the Attorney General and Secretary of Defense are to provide military equipment to local jurisdictions for purposes of helping them out and bolstering their resources. In other words, the attorney general and secretary of defense are to provide military equipment to local jurisdictions for purposes of helping them out and bolstering their resources. Once again though, this is leading people to talk about martial law. Now I covered martial law a few weeks ago but I want to make

this distinction again because many of you wrote into me about this. The military assisting local law enforcement is very different than invoking martial law. Martial law not only replaces the authority of law enforcement with the military and allows military personnel to decide on policy rather than elected officials, but also suspends civil liberties for citizens by putting the military in a position of power. The invocation of martial law means the suspension of constitutional rights for all citizens. It also suspends all local laws, civil authority, and sometimes local judiciaries. That is not what's happening here. What's happening here is the

military assisting local law enforcement by providing equipment and potentially personnel. This is something that is allowed per, you know, something like the Insurrection Act. And as I mentioned a few weeks ago, we actually don't even know if the president has the authority to unilaterally declare martial law. Martial law is not in the federal Constitution, and the Supreme Court has we actually don't even know if the president has the authority to unilaterally declare martial law. Martial law is not in the federal constitution and the Supreme Court has never answered that question. So to be clear, what this executive order calls for is for the government to provide military equipment and possibly military personnel to assist local law enforcement, which is very different than invoking martial law. On Tuesday, President Trump sat down with Terry Moran

from ABC News to discuss his first 100 days in office. Let's walk through some of the claims he made in that interview and discuss whether they are true or false. On trade, President Trump said that under the Biden administration, we were losing three to $5 billion per day and one and a half trillion to $2 trillion each year. Trump made similar claims in a recent meeting with El Salvador's president and said that

now we are making around $3 billion per day. So that $3 billion per day claim comes from the assumption that a 20% tariff on $3 trillion in imports would yield $3 billion in revenue per day. But that figure does not take into account how tariffs change people's buying habits, how other countries retaliate with their own tariffs. So a treasury report from March when tariffs were 20% on China and 25% on Mexico and Canada found that $8.16 billion was raised that month, which is equivalent to about $263 million per day. Since then though, we know that the tariff on China increased to 145% and a 10% baseline tariff was put into place. So on April 18th, the government collected $323 million just in that one day. This is significantly

more than the Biden administration, but not $3 billion per day, obviously. To compare, in fiscal year 2024, the Biden administration collected $76 billion or $210 million per day. Finally, did the Biden administration actually lose $2, $3, $4 billion per day? This number seems to be a reference to the daily average trade deficit, which according to the Commerce Department was about two and a half billion per day in fiscal year 2024, but that is different than losses, right? So in sum, Trump's claim that the U.S. is making more money under his administration than Biden's administration is true. However, his estimates are off by about a factor of 10.

He claimed the United States is making $3 billion per day. The number is closer to $300 million per day as of mid-April. And then of course, as we just talked about the claim that the Biden administration was losing $2 billion per day is based on trade deficits, which are different than losses. President Trump claimed that eggs are down 87%, gasoline is way down, everything is down. Let's break that down a bit. The claim that gas prices are overall down is false. The claim that egg prices are down is more complex.

So it's true that egg prices are down for wholesale eggs, but egg prices are not down for eggs that consumers purchase at the grocery store. We'll get more into eggs in a minute, let's just cover the gas thing first. On April 29th, the American Automobile Association reported that the average price of regular gasoline was $3.16, which is actually a slight increase from Inauguration Day when it averaged $3.12. He also claimed that gas just hit $1.98 in a lot of states. However, there is no evidence

of this. Currently, the lowest reported average gasoline price in any state is $2.66, and that's in Mississippi. Now, when it comes to eggs, the average price of one dozen large grade A eggs in January was $4.95. Average prices rose to as high as $6.59 in March and are still sitting at around $6. However, according to the Department of Agriculture, the wholesale price of eggs has decreased. So from January to this past week, the wholesale price of a dozen eggs has decreased from $6.55 to $3, which is a 54% decrease. Economists are not sure at what point that decline in wholesale egg prices will translate into relief for consumers, but one would think

that it would happen soon. So again, the claim that gas prices are down is false. Egg prices are down for wholesale eggs, but not grocery store eggs. Trump said, quote, we've got $7-8 trillion being invested in our country in two months. Biden didn't have that in over a year. End quote, this is true. Chief economist for the Investment Company Institute reported that money market funds hit a record high of seven trillion in assets under management

in the first week of March, which is a $51.15 billion increase. So some of these companies that are investing in the US include SoftBank, OpenAI, and Oracle, investing a combined $500 billion. Apple also investing $500 billion. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company committed $100 billion.

Nvidia committed $200 billion. When it comes to other countries, the UAE committed $1.4 trillion, Japan $1 trillion, Saudi Arabia $600 billion, and India 310 billion. In referencing the Biden administration, Trump claimed, quote, we had the worst inflation probably in the history of our country. People say 48 years, but probably probably in the history of our country, we had the worst inflation, End quote. The claim that the Biden administration experienced the worst inflation in over 40 years is true, but the claim that the Biden administration

experienced the worst inflation ever is false. Inflation peaked at 9.1% in June 2022, which was the highest inflation rate in more than 40 years. However, in 1980, under the Reagan administration, inflation hit 13.5%. Similarly in 1981, inflation was at 10.3%. In 1979, inflation was at 11.3%. So inflation was actually the highest ever in 1980, not during the Biden administration. Trump claimed, quote, the Biden administration admitted 20 to 21 million people

through our border to come in from prisons and mental institutions. This is false as it pertains to the figure. So that 21 million figure seems to refer to the 11 million migrants living in the United States as of January, 2022, plus the nearly 10 million encounters, 8 million of which were at the southern border that occurred during the Biden administration. So the claim that the Biden administration oversaw 21 million illegal entries is false. The number is closer to 10 million. We also know that a 2024 ICE report identified more than 13,000 individuals convicted of

homicide that entered the United States. But Trump's claim that these individuals entered during the Biden administration is misleading because the report includes data spanning 40 years Sticking with the border Trump said for two months in a row We have set all-time records for the lowest number of illegal border crossings ever recorded This is true at least in the context of available records, right? The the records that that the United States has date back to the year 2000 We unfortunately don't have numbers beyond that.

In March, there were 7,181 encounters and in February, 8,346 encounters. This is significantly lower than the Biden administration, which recorded about 140,000 encounters at the border in February and March of 2024. Trump similarly said that the border was closed down 99.9% since he took office. In actuality, the figure is probably closer to about 95%, but that number will likely increase with recent deportations and ICE arrests.

Trump said he does not believe Doge has gone too far and that Doge has already saved $150 billion. According to Doge's website, Trump's claim is true. and that Doge has already saved $150 billion. According to Doge's website, Trump's claim is true. So Doge's website says it saved $160 billion as of April 20th. However, less than 40% of these savings come from individual savings, like canceling federal contracts, grants, and leases,

and only about half of the itemized savings listed on Doge's website had a link to some form of evidence. So the verifiable amount saved by Doge has not been confirmed, but accounting for what, you know, what is verifiable, Doge has saved at least 32.5 billion. In talking about vaccines, Moran, the ABC News host, brought up that many people feel their lives were saved by

Operation Warp Speed and Trump's first term, in which he developed the COVID vaccine. Moran asked Trump whether following in the steps of his health advancements through Warp Speed, he would recommend to parents that they get their children vaccinated for measles amid the largest measles outbreak in a decade in Texas. Trump said he recommends the vaccine, but would not mandate it, and affirmed that HHS Secretary Kennedy had recommended the vaccine already too. This is true.

Though RFK is known as a vaccine skeptic, he did endorse the MMR vaccine last month as the quote, most effective way to prevent the spread of measles. He also directed the CDC to supply pharmacies and Texas-run clinics with needed MMR vaccines Okay, so I do have one more fact check to get to but we are gonna take our third and final break here for time Purposes when we come back, we'll do that one last fact check and then get into a Supreme Court case and a few other things

Welcome back. All right one last fact check from this ABC interview that President Trump did marking his 100th day in office. So when talking about Abrego Garcia, Trump said that Abrego Garcia had the letters and numbers MS-13 for MS-13 tattooed on his knuckles. This is false. We talked about this one a few weeks ago. So Abrego Garcia has one tattoo on each of his knuckles. The tattoo on his pointer finger is a marijuana leaf. The tattoo on his middle finger knuckle is a smiley face with Xs for eyes. The tattoo on his ring finger knuckle is a cross. And the tattoo on his pinky finger knuckle is a skull. When the White House presented a picture of these tattoos to say that Abrego Garcia was part of the MS-13 gang, it added the letters and numbers MS-13 to each finger

to illustrate the symbolism that it believed was there. In other words, the White House thought that the marijuana leaf stands for the letter M, the smiley face stands for the letter S, the cross stands for the number one, and the skull stands for the number three. So to illustrate that symbolism, the White House added M to the number one, and the skull stands for the number three. So to illustrate that symbolism, the White House added M to the pointer finger,

S to the, I'm getting my fingers confused, to the middle finger, the number one to the ring finger, and then the number three to the pinky finger. But Abrego Garcia does not actually have the letters and numbers MS13 explicitly tattooed on his knuckles like the president said in the interview and we know this because we have pictures

of a Brago Garcia's hands in other environments like when Senator Van Haaland released a picture of them after his visit to El Salvador there's pictures and videos that his his wife has uploaded over the years so we know that he has these tattoos of the marijuana leaf, the smiley face, the cross and the skull, but he does not have MS-13 explicitly tattooed on his knuckles. Okay, let's move on to a Supreme Court case. We're in the home stretch of this episode.

So this Supreme Court case specifically will answer the question of whether your state taxpayer dollars May soon fund religious charter schools the justices just heard arguments this week So let's talk about what's at issue and how the justices are feeling during arguments following arguments all those things So a couple of years ago the Oklahoma State Statewide Virtual Charter School Board approved a virtual Catholic schools application to become a charter school, which aimed to provide a Catholic education to approximately 500 students, many from lower income families. What this meant though was that the virtual Catholic school, which is called St. Isidore,

would be publicly funded as a regular charter school. So Oklahoma Attorney General Drummond challenged this approval. He argued that it violates both state law and constitutional provisions that mandate public schools to remain nonsectarian. The case eventually makes its way to the Oklahoma State Supreme Court, and the State Supreme Court sides with the attorney general. The court found that if St. Isidore wants to be a publicly funded charter school, it has to adhere to non-religious programming, aligning with both the state's constitution and the Establishment Clause of the federal constitution. The School Board then appeals the case to the Supreme Court of the United States, and

the School Board argues that denying the establishment of a religious charter school infringes on the constitutional right to religious freedom. In other words, the Establishment Clause can only be satisfied by giving equal opportunity to all religious leanings, that excluding religious institutions from charter programs solely due to their religious nature violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause because it constitutes religious discrimination, especially because, as the school board argues, the charter schools, while they're publicly funded, are initiated and operated by private organizations. Oklahoma's attorney general, on the other hand, argued that a publicly funded religious school violates the constitutional principle of separation of church and state, asserting

that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars for religious instruction or school programs. Drummond also pointed to Oklahoma's state constitution, which explicitly prohibits public funds from being used to support religious institutions or programs. He says allowing religious charter schools could set a dangerous precedent, undermining the foundational principle that public schools remain secular and non-sectarian. So during arguments this week,

the conservative justices did seem at least mildly sympathetic to the school board's stance, whereas the liberal justices voiced strong concerns about the use of taxpayer funds for religious instruction and emphasize the importance of taxpayer funds for religious instruction and emphasized the importance of maintaining the constitutional principle of separation of church and state. Some of the conservative justices like Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch questioned whether excluding religious institutions from public programs constitutes religious discrimination,

suggesting that religious organizations shouldn't be treated as second class in public funding decisions. And these justices appeared sympathetic to the argument that denying the school's charter could infringe upon religious freedom and parental choice. Chief Justice John Roberts expressed reservations about the extent of state involvement in the school's operations, mentioning that this case could involve more extensive state involvement than in previous Supreme Court cases, potentially redefining the boundaries

between public education and religious instruction. Importantly, Justice Barrett recused herself from this case because elements of the school board's legal team are actually being advised by a close friend of Barrett, so there's a bit of a conflict of interest there. With Barrett recused, that means the court's conservative justices hold a four to three majority, but Chief Justice Roberts did seem as if he could potentially side with the liberal justices on this one, which would create a four to four tie. When there is a tie at the Supreme Court, the

lower court's decision stands, which in this case would mean that if St. Isidore wants to be a publicly funded charter school, it has to adhere to non-religious programming. Otherwise, it cannot be funded by state taxpayer dollars. We can expect a decision in this case within the next two months, and I will of course update you when we have a ruling. this case within the next two months. And I will of course update you when we have a ruling. Last story of the day before we get into quick hitters, let's talk about what's going on with the GDP contraction. First of all, what the heck is a GDP and what is a contraction?

GDP stands for gross domestic product. It is the total monetary value of all finished goods and services produced within a country's borders over a specific period of time. It's usually measured quarterly or annually, and as I said, it includes goods and services. So it doesn't just measure goods manufactured in factories, but also services provided by teachers, doctors, hairdressers, et cetera.

If the GDP is going up, that usually means businesses are doing well, people are earning more, consumers are spending more. If the GDP is going down, that usually means businesses are doing well, people are earning more, consumers are spending more. If the GDP is going down, it usually means the opposite, that economic activity is slowing down. Now, an economic contraction refers to a period when a country's economic output decreases as measured by the fall in GDP, right? It typically means the economy is producing fewer goods and services than it did in the

previous period, which is usually a sign of weakening demand, rising uncertainty, and or disruptions in key sectors. In a contraction, consumers may be spending less either because they have less income or because they're worried about the future. Businesses might be making fewer sales. Businesses might be cutting back on production or letting off workers to save some money. But here the situation is actually a bit different because final sales of goods to consumers actually grew in Q1 at a 3% annualized rate in the first quarter, obviously Q1,

which is above the 2.9% growth we saw last quarter. What really contributed to this 0.3% contraction was the surge in imports. And I'll explain how that affects the GDP in a minute, but businesses essentially rushed to stockpile goods ahead of the new tariffs, which widened the trade deficit to a record level. Because remember, the trade deficit is when a country imports more goods and services than it exports. So if US businesses are importing a ton, because they're trying to import as much as they can before tariffs take effect

The trade deficit is naturally going to increase because we're not exporting at that same rate, right? A trade deficit represents a net outflow of spending from the domestic economy Reducing the total production within the country. So that means a trade deficit will generally reduce a country's GDP, which is what we're seeing here. The most recent contraction prior to this one happened in the first quarter of 2022. That time, the GDP contracted at an annualized rate of 1.4%, which is more severe than the 0.3% contraction we're seeing now.

In 2022, the contraction was attributed to the economy moving from one crisis to another, that being moving from COVID to inflation. Whereas this contraction is mainly because of these tariffs and the uncertainty about the future. So what will really give us answers here is time. We have to see after Q2 if the contraction gets worse or if it gets better, because short-term contractions aren't necessarily crippling.

But if a contraction lasts long enough or is especially severe, that's when it can lead to a recession, which is a more prolonged and widespread economic downturn. A general rule of thumb is that you need to have at least two quarters of back-to-back contractions in GDP to meet the recession standard that is set by the National Bureau of Economic Research. And even with two negative quarters, there's also other factors that have to be considered like how sharp is the decline? How long will it last? How widespread is it felt across the country? So like I said, time will be our best indicator here, but that is where things stand as of

now. And now we can finish with some quick hitters. According to multiple sources, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and his deputy will be leaving their posts in the White House today. Waltz came under scrutiny in March after he put together the Signal Group chat that mistakenly included the Atlantic's editor-in-chief. Fox News has uncovered another protective order filed by Abrego Garcia's wife in 2020. The petition says that on August 3rd, 2020, Abrego Garcia, quote, took her phone around 1 a.m. and in

the morning he wanted to take my car but I told him I was going out with my kids. He then got angry. I went upstairs to make food for my kids, but he turned off the stove. End quote. She also said that he, quote, told her ex-mother-in-law that even if he kills me, no one can do anything to him. End quote. The form alleges acts of verbal and physical abuse against her and mental abuse against the children. Though one week after that petition was filed, she asked for it to be rescinded, saying her family wanted to take part in her son's birthday and that Abrego Garcia had agreed to continue counseling and if not, he would be willing to sign divorce papers. PepsiCo says it will remove artificial dyes from Lays and Tostitos snacks by the end of

the year. In a statement, PepsiCo's CEO said, quote, 60% of our portfolio already has no artificial colors, laze and tostitos will be dye free by the end of the year. Consumers want more natural ingredients, we're accelerating that transition, end quote. Yesterday, the Treasury Department announced that the United States and Ukraine signed a minerals deal. The agreement establishes

a United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund and grants the U.S. access to oil and natural gas along with rare earth minerals in Ukraine like aluminum, graphite, lithium, and uranium. The deal was originally set to be signed in February, but its signing was delayed after that tense Oval Office meeting between President Trump and President Zelensky. According to The Wall Street Journal, last month Tesla's board initiated a formal process for finding a new CEO to replace Elon Musk. Tesla says this is false. the Wall Street Journal, last month Tesla's board initiated a formal process for finding a new CEO to replace Elon Musk. Tesla says this is false.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Tesla's board contacted several executive search firms following the rapid decline of sales and profits within the company. But following that report, Tesla released a statement which says, quote, earlier today there was a media report erroneously claiming that Tesla board has contacted recruitment firms to initiate a CEO search at the company. This is absolutely false and was communicated to the media before the report was published. The CEO of Tesla is Elon Musk and the board is highly confident in his ability to continue executing on the exciting growth plans ahead, end quote. Yesterday the HHS announced it will require placebo-controlled trials for all

new vaccines before they can be licensed for use. In a statement, the HHS said, Under Secretary Kennedy's leadership, all new vaccines will undergo safety testing and placebo-controlled trials prior to licensure, a radical departure from past practices. On Saturday, a spokesperson for the HHS noted that, quote, the COVID vaccines, including new ones by Pfizer and Moderna, are new and must have more gold standard signs to ensure safety and efficacy for the public. And last night, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sent a message to Iran warning that the country will face consequences for its support of the Houthis terrorist organization. This warning was seemingly a response to the US fighter jet that sunk in the Red Sea on Monday. Hegseth said on X, quote, message to Iran. We see your lethal support to the Houthis. We know exactly

what you are doing. You know very well what the US military is capable of and you were warned. You will pay the consequence at the time and place of our choosing. End quote. On Monday, a US fighter jet that fell off an aircraft carrier in the Red Sea after the carrier supposedly made an evasive maneuver to avoid a Huthi drone. Due to the fact that today's episode is now approaching an hour, if not over an hour, I'm going to leave it here. My voice is getting tired, I'm sure you are getting tired. So we'll get back to critical thinking next week. Thank you for being here. As always, don't forget my newsletter goes out tomorrow morning so be sure to subscribe if you haven't already. Have a great weekend and I will talk to

you on Monday.