UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (5/8/25): Transgender Military Ban Can Proceed, Newark Air Traffic Issues, & More. PLUS Is Desegregation Being Overturned? Is the President Throwing Himself a Birthday Parade?

Episode Date: May 8, 2025

SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S ⁠FREE NEWSLETTER⁠. Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: Supreme Court Allows Transgender Military Ban to Proceed (0:26) Newark Outage: What We Know (8:30) Trump's New Executive Order Stops Funding for Gain-of-Function Research (16:01) Education Dept. Cancels $1B in Biden-Era School Mental Health Grants (19:28) DHS Announces $1,000 Stipend for Self-Deportation (22:57) Here's How the Conclave Works (25:10) Quick Hitters: US Reaches Trade Deal with UK, Another Jet Ends Up in Red Sea, Largest Fentanyl Bust in US History, 205 Child Predators Arrested in Operation, Law Enforcement Targets 764 Network, Officers Acquitted of State Charges in Nichols Case, House Passes 'Gulf of America Act' (29:19) Rumor Has It: Is Desegregation Being Overturned? Is the President Throwing Himself a Birthday Parade? Are Oklahoma Lawmakers Trying to Overturn Gay Marriage? (33:35) Critical Thinking Segment (40:04) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE 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 8th. Let's talk about some news. Just as a heads up, today's episode is out a little earlier than usual, which means my news cycle ended a little earlier than usual. So everything that you'll hear in today's episode is current as of noon Eastern time on Thursday. First story of the day, on Tuesday, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to proceed with banning transgender individuals from the military. For this story, I specifically want to walk through a little bit of a background of this

case, how it got to the Supreme Court and why this decision from the Supreme Court is not a permanent decision, but we could see a permanent decision down the road. So let's start with the background. In 2021, President Biden signed an executive order that permitted transgender people to openly serve in the military on the basis that, quote, America is safer when everyone

qualified to serve it can do so openly and with pride and quote on January 27th of this year President Trump revoked that order and issued his own executive order which directed the defense secretary to ban individuals with gender dysphoria from the military this includes those who have a current diagnosis or history of or exhibit symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria. And for clarity's sake, gender dysphoria is the medical term for the psychological distress one experiences as a result of a conflict between their gender identity and sex assigned at birth. Now, if you're wondering what the military policy

was before Biden, I will tell you. So from the founding of this country until 1960, there was no formal policy explicitly addressing this issue. Despite no formal policy, transgender individuals did not serve in the military during this time due to societal norms and the fact that it wasn't the issue then that it is today. Then in 1960 transgender individuals were officially banned from serving and enlisting. The basis was that gender nonconformity was incompatible with military service. So that ban lasted until 2016 when President Obama allowed military service and access to publicly funded gender transition surgeries

for transgender individuals. Enlistment was permitted beginning January 1st, 2018. Now at this point, so enlistment lasted just over a year until April, 2019 when President Trump came in and reinstated that prior ban. Trump's 2019 ban applied to individuals with a history of gender dysphoria or individuals who had undergone gender transition. And this ban applied to service, enlistment, and access to publicly funded gender transition treatments. But there was actually a waiver exception here

when it came to service and enlistment. So those who had initiated gender transition prior to April, 2019, after being diagnosed with gender dysphoria by a military medical provider were exempt from the ban and could continue to serve. But anyone diagnosed with gender dysphoria after April 2019 would have to serve in their biological sex. Also, applicants with a history of gender dysphoria

would be allowed to serve if they had been living in their biological sex for at least three years and if they committed to serve in their biological sex. So there were a few exceptions in 2019. That reinstatement of the ban lasted just under two years because President Biden then came in and signed that executive order we talked about which permitted transgender people to openly serve in the military. And then of course President Trump reversed that executive order this past January. And now we are here. Trump's new ban was officially implemented on February 26th under the reasoning that

quote, the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of or exhibit symptoms with gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service." End quote. At the time of implementation there were about 4,200 active transgender military members according to a US defense official, but transgender and LGBTQ rights groups estimate the actual number of affected troops is higher than that. So following Trump's order, Commander Emily Schilling, a transgender woman who had served nearly 20 years

or has served nearly 20 years in the military as a naval pilot, led this lawsuit of seven current transgender military members, one prospective transgender military member, and then a nonprofit with current and prospective transgender military member, and then a nonprofit with current and prospective transgender troops. And by the way, if you're like me and you're thinking, how has Schilling served 20 years in the military

if transgender individuals were banned from serving until just nine years ago? The short answer is that Schilling wasn't openly transgender until 2019. But anyway, Schilling sued the administration once the new ban was signed, arguing that the order turns away transgender people and kicks them out for no legitimate reason. Schilling says that the order baselessly declares all transgender people unfit to serve, insults

and demeans them, and cruelly describes every one of them as incapable of an honorable, truthful and disciplined lifestyle solely because they are transgender. So a district judge in Washington state sided with the transgender military members on the basis that the ban violated the First Amendment due process and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. From there, the administration appealed.

At the same time though, the administration asked the appellate court to freeze that lower court ruling while it pursued its appeal because if it could get that ruling frozen while on appeal, the administration could continue to enforce the ban while it was going through litigation. However, it did not go in the administration's favor. The appeals court rejected the administration's request, which meant that while the administration was pursuing its appeal, it could that while the administration was pursuing its

appeal, it could not enforce the ban and transgender individuals would be able to continue serving. The administration then took it to the Supreme Court. This was on April 24th. The U.S. Solicitor General who filed the request on behalf of the administration told the Supreme Court that the freeze was necessary because 1. The litigation would take a long time and it's too long to force the military to maintain a policy that it has determined to be contrary to the nation's interest and 2. The ban on transgender people furthers the government's interest in military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, and discipline.

Schilling on the other hand, argued in part that a ruling in favor of the administration would, quote, upend the status quo by allowing the government to begin discharging thousands of transgender service members, thereby ending the distinguished careers and gouging holes in military units. As we know, earlier this week, the majority of justices ruled in favor of the administration.

Now, this decision came by way of an order. And as I've talked about in the past, an order is different than an opinion in that an order doesn't always provide a rationale for ruling one way or another, and an order doesn't have to specify which justices voted which way. So in this case, all we know is that the court's three liberal justices would not have granted the administration's request, but that a majority of the justices did. That's all we know though. We didn't get an explanation or a confirmation of which justices were in the majority. So what this means is the lower court's ruling is paused and the administration can enforce its ban on

transgender individuals while pursuing its appeal. Now once the appellate court, after hearing the merits of this case, issues a final decision, that is when the losing party will likely take this case to the Supreme Court and that is when the Supreme Court would issue a final decision on the merits of the case. So that's why I said in the beginning of the story that this week's ruling from the Supreme Court is a temporary ruling, but we could see a permanent ruling from the justices down the road. All right.

With that, let's talk about what we know about this outage at Newark Liberty International Airport. Let's start with a big picture first. At the end of April, Newark Airport air traffic controllers experienced a 60 to 90 second outage, which caused air traffic controllers to lose the ability to see or communicate with up to 20 incoming planes This had a ripple effect. It caused delays and cancellations and eventually a staffing shortage now the actual blackout happened at Philadelphia Terminal Radar Approach Control Center, which Manages certain airspace

for flights in and out of Newark. So the actual outage didn't happen at Newark, it just affected planes in the Newark airspace. But let's zoom in a bit. As you might imagine, a communications outage meant that planes were in the air without any guidance whatsoever. Pilots were basically forced

to hold their altitudes and positions, which caused a chain reaction of delays and cancellations. The National Air Traffic Controllers Association has said that in the wake of this outage more than 20% of the FAA controllers at Philadelphia Terminal Radar Approach Control Center had taken leave under the Federal Employees Compensation Act, which allows absences for either injuries or on-the-job trauma. They took their leave by the, just in case I wasn't clear enough,

they took their leave on the basis of trauma. Under the law, these workers can remain on leave for up to 45 days and must receive medical clearance before returning to work. Due to this staffing shortage, plus outdated infrastructure, as we experienced through this outage, and I'll get into more in a minute, plus ongoing runway construction,

United Airlines specifically has canceled 35 daily flights at Newark. United operates 70% of flights at Newark. The FAA has said it's deploying additional personnel to Newark and The FAA has said it's deploying additional personnel to Newark and accelerating system upgrades, but despite this, continued delays are expected, at least in the short term. Now, this isn't the first time Newark and the FAA, for that matter, have had air traffic control issues. In July of last year, the FAA moved about 30 air traffic controllers from a Long Island

regional air traffic control facility to one in Philadelphia, which controls both Philadelphia and Newark airspace. So these air traffic controllers that were moved were splitting duties between Newark and Philadelphia in an attempt to solve staffing issues and air traffic congestion. Within weeks of that move though, air traffic controllers reported serious issues. They filed a report with the FAA about an August incident specifically that said in part,

the fact that there was no catastrophic midair collision is nothing short of luck. Another controller said they were absolutely dumbfounded about the lack of training in the Philadelphia move. Then in September of 2024, a radar issue caused a ground stop at Newark. This led to significant flight delays over the Labor Day weekend. And the FAA attributed that issue to data transmission issues, which affected multiple airports in the northeast, but further investigation showed that the FAA actually had prior knowledge of potential risks associated with equipment bandwidth issues that could affect radar functionality.

In November of 2024, a Newark air traffic controller can again be heard saying, quote, we just lost all frequencies and communications here, end quote. But I want to talk more about the July 2024 move from Long Island to Philly because that actually played a role in the most recent outage. When the air traffic controllers were moved from Long Island to Philadelphia, the radar feed data for Newark did not get moved with them. So that meant the radar data feeds were still going to Long Island first and then being transferred to Philadelphia on old copper wiring. And that old copper wiring

is what the FAA is thinking led to the problem. According to the GM of airports for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Aidan O'Donnell, the radar data for Newark should have been migrated over so Philadelphia was receiving a direct data feed for radar data prior to the relocation of aerospace, but that didn't happen. The quality and accuracy of the radar data, he says, is critical because it tells the air traffic controllers where the planes are in the sky and any amount of disruption to the data feed could have serious consequences. He said, quote, when that data feed is disrupted, interrupted, slowed, compromised, for whatever reason,

it could be a simple glitch. It doesn't have to be anything crazy. It could cause the controllers in Philadelphia to lose confidence in what they're seeing. End quote. So that's what we know about the cause of the outage in this case. As of now, I'm sure there will be more investigations that will confirm what truly happened here. Now let's finally address the most frequently asked question, did this recent outage have to do with the recent federal funding cuts and employment cuts? Well, for one, we can't definitively answer this yes or no

because we just don't have any official findings yet, it's just too soon. What we can say is this, number one, it is true that some of the 400 employees cut by the administration included people that keep this outdated technology like old copper wire and radar data feeds working. But we don't know with any degree of certainty

if any of those laid off individuals were from the Northeast region. Two, this outage is widely being viewed as a result of systemic underinvestment and slow progress in FAA modernization. And we're not talking about a systemic underinvestment and slow progress in modernization within the last four months.

We're talking about the last four decades. William McGee, a senior fellow for aviation and travel at the American Economic Liberties Project, said these problems transcend any one political party. He said, quote, the FAA has been understaffed and underfunded and under-equipped for more than 40 years. If we're assigning blame, there's a lot of blame to be assigned to a lot of parties, including both political parties. He said, quote, there have been small efforts, end quote, to fix the problems of air traffic control shortages and upgrade outdated technology, but no party in power in decades has put in the big effort that's required to figure out who is going to pay for these vast fixes.

McGee said the government has been avoiding the conversation for years, and it's mostly due to infighting over who should pay for a bigger FAA budget, whether it's taxpayers, airlines, airports, aircraft manufacturers, cities, states, new taxes, or a mix. Nonetheless, this outage has prompted renewed calls for overhauling the country's air traffic control system, both in terms of technology and staffing. Insiders and union officials have said the agency has long struggled with outdated equipment, understaffing, and slow modernization, which of course makes

the air traffic control system more vulnerable to single points of failure. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy similarly said the aviation industry is still using technology from the 80s and 90s. In a statement, the FAA said it's taking immediate steps to improve the reliability of operations at Newark, and these improvements include replacing the old copy and 90s. In a statement, the FAA said it's taking immediate steps to improve the reliability of operations at Newark, and these improvements include replacing the old copper connections with fiber optic lines and adding a backup system in case of an outage. Let's take our first break here, and I will be right back. Welcome back. On Monday, President Trump signed an executive order aiming to enhance the safety

and security of biological research in the United States and around the world by stopping quote dangerous gain of function research. So the order directs various federal officials and agencies to establish guidelines to one and federal funding of quote dangerous gain of function research conducted in countries of concern like China and Iran, as well as foreign nations that do not have adequate research oversight. Two, end federal funding of other life science research occurring in countries of concern

and foreign nations that lack sufficient research oversight. And three, suspend federally funded dangerous gain of function research in the US, at least until a comprehensive policy is finalized. The order says any exceptions require high level review. Now, gain of function refers to any genetic mutation in an organism or virus that results in new or enhanced ability.

These types of genetic mutations often occur naturally, but the process is too slow for scientists to study, which is why they use these gain of function techniques. Gain of function research basically examines how and why an organism gains a new property or alters an existing one in part to better understand the transmission, infectious properties, and pathogenesis of viruses. While controversial due to its nature of intentionally enhancing the properties of organisms and viruses, gain-of-function research has also contributed to public health by helping scientists develop vaccines and anticipate viral mutations, understand the development of pandemics, and improve pandemic preparedness. So while gain of function research can help scientists better understand how diseases evolve and how to stop

them, it also raises safety and security concerns as well. Notably, experts estimate that less than 1% of gain of function research or gain of function experiments involve work that could significantly increase a pathogen's transmissibility or severity, which would, you know, typically be the kind of research that's considered high risk or dangerous. However, the executive order provides a broader definition of dangerous, defining dangerous gain of function research

as, quote, scientific research on an infectious agent or toxin with the potential to cause disease by enhancing its pathogenicity or increasing its transmissibility." The order cites COVID as its rationale, saying that the pandemic revealed the risks of gain-of-function research practices and the measures included in this order will, quote, drastically reduce the potential for lab-related incidents involving gain of function research like that conducted on bat coronaviruses in China, end quote. Critics of the order have said that rather than focusing on ending funding for gain of function research, the president

should instead focus on steps that would prepare us for the next pandemic, like tighter biosecurity and biosafety protections in labs, both domestically and abroad, strong regulatory oversight of gain of function research, restoring full funding to the NIH and CDC, and rejoining the World Health Organization. Critics also argue that cutting funding for gain of function research might encourage risky research underground or to countries with even less oversight, potentially increasing and not decreasing global risk. Now this next story is from a little over a week ago, but I had a lot of you submit

this one as a requested topic this week, so I threw it into today's episode. On April 29th, the Education Department announced in a written notice that it would cut approximately $1 billion in federal mental health grants in schools. To be clear, these are grants that originated under the Biden administration in the wake of the 2022 Uvalde school shooting through a law called the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. The law aimed to reduce gun violence and improve school safety by funding mental health services, crisis intervention programs, and adding enhanced background checks for firearm purchases. As part of that law, the president awarded hundreds of

millions of dollars in mental health grants to support schools across the nation. And Biden's strategy was focused in part on strengthening the mental health workforce, which for Biden meant increasing the size and diversity of the workforce, something that President Trump opposes, right? According to the White House website, included in Biden's $280 million initiative to strengthen the school-based mental health workforce was 95 million specifically granted to 35 states for the purpose of hiring more mental health professionals such as counselors, psychologists, and social workers. These grants were projected to result in the hiring of over 14,000 new mental health professionals

in schools nationwide. As an example, Wake County Public Schools in North Carolina was awarded $14.1 million to expand its mental health team. They plan to hire 20 therapists, three instructional assistants, two school social workers, one clinical supervisor, and one program manager. However, some of the programs around the country supported diversity hiring, which as we know the administration, the current current administration is against. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Communications at the Education Department said, under the deeply flawed priorities of the Biden administration, grant recipients use the funding

to implement race-based actions like recruiting quotas in ways that have nothing to do with mental health and could hurt the very students the grants are supposed to help. We owe it to American families to ensure that taxpayer dollars are supporting evidence-based practices that are truly focused on improving students mental health." End quote. And to give you an example of one of the programs that issue here, certain programs receiving funding were promoting the idea that quote, training counselor educators have the responsibility to prepare the next generation of counselors to recognize and challenge systemic injustices,

anti-racism, and the pervasiveness of white supremacy to ethically support diverse communities. End quote. So the Education Department says programs like these conflict with the current administration's policies and therefore will not be federally funded. The education department also said that the cuts were made to the grants that specifically worked to advance diversity goals and intentionally hired non-white employees. To be clear, the grants at issue here won't end immediately, but rather at the end of their current budget period. And the Education

Department says it does not intend to eliminate the programs or ignore the mental health crisis, but instead will revise and realign them with the current administration's priorities. Okay, the next story we actually briefly touched on in the quick hitters segment of Monday's episode, but we've learned more since then. So I did want to include it as a story in today's episode. The DHS says it will pay $1,000 to illegal immigrants who are willing to voluntarily return to their home country. It'll also pay for travel assistance, though not guaranteed, and is to be determined based on financial need, and will assist in travel document assistance if needed.

According to the DHS, the $1,000 stipend will be paid upon confirmation through the CBP Home app that return to the home country has been completed. The announcement also said that those who tell the government of their intentions to return to their home country via the app will be temporarily deprioritized for detention and removal by ICE, as long as they are, quote, making meaningful strides in completing that departure, end quote. That temporary deprioritization only lasts

until the individual's departure date. So if the departure date passes and the person still has not returned to their home country, they will no longer be deprioritized by ICE. The DHS's press release also states that participation in self-deportation may help preserve the option for an illegal alien to re-enter the United States legally in the future. The DHS says the new initiative, inclusive of the $1,000 stipend and possible travel cost, would actually cost less than deportation.

This is because the average cost of arrest, detainment, and deportation is currently just over $17,000 per individual. So even with the cost of the stipend, the DHS says the cost of removal will go down about 70%. Under the FAQ section of the website, the DHS gives some specifics on who is eligible for the self-deportation program. So they must be physically present in the United States at the time of submitting their intent to depart and minors must also be registered to receive the benefits of the program, but minors can only be registered after an adult is registered. Those currently involved in immigration proceedings, those that have been previously deported, or those that have final orders of removal can still self-deport.

Okay, so you know I don't typically like touching on international affairs because it's a slippery slope, right? I'm only one person. I can only handle one country. So once I start talking about another country or, you know, a foreign conflict somewhere, all of a sudden I have to talk about all of them and I just don't have the bandwidth to do that. But because this was such a highly requested topic, let's talk about the conclave, which is the process to elect the next Pope. It started yesterday on Wednesday, but preparation actually started well before. So for instance, in the Sistine Chapel, which is where the voting actually takes place, they set it up so cardinals are shielded from outside influence while they vote.

They actually add a wooden floor to the chapel to hide devices like signal jammers. But as I said, the actual voting process started yesterday and in Catholicism, there is a hierarchy within the church with cardinals being the highest below the pope. So all cardinals under the age of 80 participate in the election process and cast votes for the next Pope. There are currently 252 Cardinals around the world. 133 of them are under the age of 80 and therefore eligible to vote.

Those eligible start by casting four votes each day until one Cardinal receives a two thirds majority. The votes take place at 4.30 a.m. Eastern time, 6 a.m. Eastern time, 1130 a.m. Eastern time, and 1 p.m. Eastern time each day. At each vote, one by one, the cardinals walk up to the scrutineers whose job includes counting, recounting, tying up, and then burning the ballots. After approaching the three scrutineers, the cardinal will place his ballot in the urn, bow, return to his seat, and then the next cardinal will do the same thing, so on and so forth. At the end of each vote, the ballots are taken to

stoves with, once they're counted, they're taken to stoves with connected chimneys and they're burned with chemicals that produce either white or black smoke. So black smoke tells the world that a pope has not yet been chosen, while white smoke tells the world that a successor has been elected. Yesterday, no one achieved the necessary two-thirds threshold, so we did see black smoke in the afternoon and the cardinals continued today and then if necessary, they'll continue tomorrow. If they reach the three-day mark without getting that two-thirds majority for any one candidate or any one cardinal, they take a break to pray and discuss. Now, there isn't really a number of days that the election has to take place by, but since 1831, no conclave has lasted more than four days. Once a winner receives the two-thirds necessary, they'll be approached by the dean

of the College of Cardinals, who asks if they will accept their election, and if he says yes, he officially becomes the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, and he then chooses the name which he wants to be known by. The final ballots are then burned with chemicals to emit white smoke, and that is when the world will know that a new pope has been chosen.

At this point though, the world still doesn't know exactly who was chosen. It's not until the successor goes through a ceremony and gets fitted for his papal garments that he then appears in the balcony of St. Peter's Basilica for the world to see. Now, any baptized Catholic male can be elected as Pope, but for at least the last 600 years, only Cardinals have been elected. That being said, there are some projected winners from different countries around the world, so if you want to read more about them, I have included a list in the sources section of this episode, which you can always find a link to in the show notes. And then also just as a final note, if you haven't watched the movie Conclave, I highly recommend it. I watched it. I thought the cinematography was great. It is a little

slow moving. I think it's intentionally done that way, but it really gives great insight into how this entire process works. I've heard from a couple of people that they thought the movie was way too slow and boring, but I personally do recommend it because despite its slow pace, I think it was really well done as far as capturing what takes place during the conclave. Okay, let's take our second and final break here. When we come back, we'll do quick hitters, rumor has it, and critical thinking. Welcome back. Let's do some quick hitters. President Trump announced a trade deal with the United Kingdom today. This marks the first trade deal with a foreign country following the tariff announcement last month.

Under the deal, the UK will reduce non-tariff barriers to US products. The 10% baseline tariff announced by Trump last month on all foreign countries will remain in place, but tariffs on cars imported from Britain will fall from 25% to 10% to match the baseline, and tariffs on aluminum and steel will be completely removed. According to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, the deal opens new market access to the United States for things like ethanol, beef, machinery, and agricultural products, which he says will add $5 billion of opportunity to American exporters. Britain's prime minister praised the deal,

calling it truly historic. Notably, the president said the final details of this deal will be written in the coming weeks, but he also said that the actual deal is conclusive. So perhaps some of these things I just mentioned change, but that is what we know as of now. A second US military fighter jet went overboard into the Red Sea this week. It is the second 60 million dollar military jet to fall into the Red Sea in just over a week. This time the jet was

apparently trying to land on the USS Harry S. Truman Tuesday when the system that typically hooks onto the jet as they as it lands failed. This caused the aircraft to go right into the sea. The two pilots on board were luckily able to eject and only sustained minor injuries. The first jet that fell into the sea slid off the USS Truman while the ship was performing evasive maneuvers following threats from the Houthis.

Earlier this week, the DOJ announced that the DEA carried out what Attorney General Bondy says is the quote, largest fentanyl bust in United States history, and quote, more than 400 kilograms of fentanyl were seized and 16 people were arrested. Among those arrested was the leader of the Sinaloa cartel. The bust was part of Operation Take Back America, which was announced in March, and is meant to stop illegal immigration, eliminate cartels, and end illegal human and drug trafficking. Speaking of the DOJ, a coordinated law enforcement effort resulted in 205 arrests of child sex predators over a five-day period. During this time, the DOJ said Operation Restore Justice rescued 115 children.

Operation Restore Justice includes all 55 FBI field offices, the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, and US Attorney's offices. The DOJ said parents and communities played a crucial role in locating and apprehending the suspects who are facing charges ranging from production, distribution, and possession of child sex abuse material to online enticement, to transportation of minors and sex trafficking.

In a somewhat related story, the FBI says they are getting increasingly more worried about a loose network of predators known as 764 who target teenagers on popular online platforms like Roblox and Discord and extort them for sexual and violent content. So victims end up creating graphic pornography or harming family pets or cutting themselves, even killing themselves. The predators demand pictures and videos of these acts and then extort the victims for more. There are currently more than 250 investigations underway related to this 764 network, with all 55 field offices across the country handling a 764 related case. Three former Tennessee police officers were acquitted Wednesday of all state charges

related to the fatal beating of Tyree Nichols in 2023. Jurors took just over eight hours to find all three officers not guilty on all charges following a nine-day trial. Notably, the officers will still face jail time after being convicted of federal charges last year. And finally, the House voted today to approve a bill to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. The Gulf of America Act cleared the House in a 2.11 to 2.06 vote and will now head to the Senate,

where it probably won't pass. Because of the cloture rule in the Senate, at least seven Democrats would need to join all Republicans in supporting the bill in order to even get it to a vote, and it likely won't achieve that. And now it's time for Rumor Has It, my weekly segment where I address recent rumors submitted by all of you and confirm them, dispel them, and or add context to them. Rumor has it that the Trump administration

is overturning the ban on segregation. This is false, but let's add some context. At the end of April, the DOJ ended a 58-year-old school segregation order in Louisiana. Now, as you likely know, Brown v. Board of Education was a Supreme Court case in 1954, which declared segregation in public education

unconstitutional. Despite this court ruling, it took some school districts longer than others to comply and integrate their schools. Schools that resisted integration faced federal intervention through something called a consent decree. So the federal government

would basically sue the school districts, not in compliance, and then ultimately they would work out these consent decrees, which were legal agreements between the school districts and the federal government. The agreements had specific plans that schools needed to follow and implement in order to achieve desegregation in their schools. So in 1966, this happened in a Louisiana school district. The Placmines Parish School Board had not properly

integrated their schools in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling, so the government sued. After extensive litigation, the United States won. By 1975, nine years after litigation started, the court found that the schools in this district had been properly integrated, but they decided they would continue monitoring the schools for one more year. This kept the case open. In a very odd scenario, the judge died that same year, and the court records appeared to be lost. Because of this, the case has been left open ever since, and the Placke Mines Parish School Board has continued to be monitored via this consent decree. In fact, the Justice Department paid a visit to the school district as recently as 2023. And when it makes these visits, it requests data on various things, including hiring,

discipline and more. The Plaquemines Superintendent said the paperwork that comes with these government visits had become a burden for the school district. And so the DOJ ultimately decided just over a week ago to lift that consent decree because by lifting the consent decree, the school district will no longer be subject to government oversight. And by the way, this Louisiana district is not the only district with remaining consent decrees. Many districts, primarily in the South, are still under DOJ desegregation orders despite having since integrated

their schools. So I would imagine we will see these remaining consent decrees get lifted soon as well. The DOJ said in a statement that this move, quote, righted a historical wrong freeing the local school district of federal oversight. For decades, the parish was forced to yield to the demands of past administrations unnecessarily subjecting schools and students to probing federal oversight, end quote. So what can we expect now that this consent decree has been lifted? Likely not much. Remember these consent decrees were designed to get schools to start cooperating with federal desegregation laws and Supreme Court precedent. Brown versus Board of Education, which sets the precedent that segregation in schools is unconstitutional, is still very much in

place as it has been since 1954 and it is entirely unaffected by this lifting of the consent decree. So to be clear desegregation is not being overturned. Next one, rumor has it that the president is throwing himself a birthday parade worth millions. This needs context. Yes, there will be a parade on the president's 79th birthday this year, which also happens to be Flag Day, but the parade is actually a celebration of the military's 250 years of service. June 14th is the 250th anniversary of the US military. So last week the army confirmed that a military parade will take place on June 14th this year. The exact details aren't clear, but reports are saying there will be roughly 6,600 soldiers, 150 vehicles, and 50 helicopters all following a route from the Pentagon to the National Mall. Defense officials

are estimating the cost associated with the parade to be as high as $45 million. And if you're thinking to yourself, wait, I thought America's 250th birthday was next year, you are right, but the military's birth was just over a year before we officially declared our independence. And finally, rumor has it that Oklahoma lawmakers are trying to overturn gay marriage. This is true. On Tuesday, a Republican senator and Republican representative in Oklahoma filed a concurrent resolution calling for the overturn of over 12 v Hodges, which required states to recognize gay marriage under the U.S. Constitution. Now I want to add some context here because although Oklahoma

lawmakers are trying to get Obergefell overturned, that doesn't mean Obergefell will be overturned or even that the Supreme Court will consider doing so. So what happened here is the lawmakers filed a concurrent resolution, which is essentially a written expression of the opinion of the legislature. It has to be adopted by both the House and Senate. So in this case, the concurrent resolution was filed, but it has not yet been voted on by the Oklahoma legislature. And even when it is voted on, let's assume it passes. That doesn't mean that the Supreme court has to reconsider Obergfell or even consider reconsidering Obergfell. All a concurrent resolution says is that the Oklahoma legislature would like it to do so.

A concurrent resolution does not have the force of law, it is not binding, so the Supreme Court does not have to respond in any way, assuming it's even adopted. It is purely a symbolic gesture of criticism. Now, I will note that Oklahoma is not the only state to do this. The Idaho House passed a similar resolution in January, but there have been no updates in the Idaho Senate. Several other states like Michigan, North Dakota, Montana, and South Dakota have had similar resolutions proposed, but not adopted. And just for clarity's sake, the argument from

the lawmakers that are wanting the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell is as follows. They argue that Obergefell goes against the US Constitution because the right to same-sex marriage is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and that the court essentially created a new right rather than interpreting existing rights. However, also note that the right to marriage generally is also not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but it has long been considered a constitutional fundamental right of all citizens stemming back or stemming from the 14th Amendment. But I digress. To get back to the rumor at hand, yes it is true that Oklahoma lawmakers are trying to get the Supreme Court to

overturn the right to same-sex marriage. Before we say goodbye for the day, let's finish with some critical thinking. I love how much you guys love this segment. Remember, it is not meant to be too complex. It is not meant to stump you. This is just a set of questions that will hopefully challenge the way you think and encourage you to form your own opinions

in a world where we are constantly told how and what to think by other people. Let's talk about the transgender military ban. First, per usual, check in with your initial thoughts. How do you feel about the outright ban? Why, why do you feel that way? That's the most important part of the question. For those that support the ban,

I want you to ask yourself this. Should a diagnosis of gender dysphoria carry more weight than a person's physical and mental fitness? And before you say that someone with gender dysphoria is automatically mentally unfit, I just want you to consider the following hypothetical. Regardless of whether you think it's possible, I want you to consider it.

You have four people wanting to enlist in the military. You have to enlist three. Of the four, one is transgender, three are cisgender, meaning the gender they identify with aligns with their sex assigned at birth. The transgender individual aced the physical and mental fitness test with flying colors, 100% on both tests.

Of the three cisgender service members, one got a 100% on both tests, one got a 90% on both tests, and the third got a 75% on both tests. Which three are you choosing and why? What matters to you when making your choice? For those that are against the ban, I want you to ask yourself this,

to what extent does individual identity and the right to serve get prioritized over the military's need for cohesion and uniformity, especially in high stress or combat environments. So imagine you're building a military unit that is about to be deployed to a high risk conflict zone. You can only take 10 people. Everyone passed the basics test, but some passed with flying colors and others barely

scraped by. Now three of the top scores are transgender. They've been cleared by doctors. They're fit, they're ready. But you're told that some unit leaders are concerned about the inclusion of transgender troops and how it might negatively affect morale and cohesion with the unit.

Do you still pick the three top scoring transgender individuals or do you prioritize unit morale? And why? How do you come to your decision? That's what I have for you today. Don't forget, my newsletter goes out tomorrow. If you're not subscribed yet, now would be a really good time to do that. Find the link to subscribe in the show notes for this episode or head over to Substack and search for Unbiased Society. It's free. It's great. You don't want to miss it.

Have a great weekend and I will talk to you on Monday.