UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (6/12/25): Here's What To Know About the LA Protests, Riots, and Raids. PLUS Trump to Phase Out FEMA, Kennedy Removes ACIP Members, and More.
Episode Date: June 12, 2025SUBSCRIBE 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: What You Need to Know About the LA Protests, Riots, and Raids (1:34) Listener Q&A; Answering Your Questions About ICE, Immigration, and More (17:42) Kennedy Removes All 17 Voting Members of ACIP; Replaces Some (42:39) Trump's Plans to Phase Out FEMA (46:43) Trump Admin Reinstates Confederate Names at Military Installation But This Time With a Different Honoree (49:46) Supreme Court Releases 6 Decisions; Here's What They Said About Disability Discrimination at School and Improper Federal Raids (52:48) Quick Hitters: Terry Moran Out at ABC, Musk Regrets Trump Posts, DC Prepares for Army Parade, CDC Rehires Terminated Employees, Permanent Resident Applicants to Submit Medical Exam, House Approves Trump's Rescissions Proposal (56:10) 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
Transcript
Discussion (0)
Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis.
Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, June 12th. Let's talk about some news.
Before we do though, I do have one favor to ask you. So a few times during the year, I ask you this one favor.
Usually, you know, I, when I put out a really informative episode, that's when I ask, but
the favor is that you share this episode with at least one friend or family member
If you can share it with more people great, obviously the more the better
But even if each of you just shared it with one person it would make an enormously positive impact
not only on the show but also on those that you love because we need to get as many people as
on those that you love because we need to get as many people as possible listening
to unbiased nonpartisan news sources
so that we are all as informed as we can be.
There's a lot going on across the country right now
and this is just one of those episodes
that I'm going to give you a ton of information
that you're not necessarily going to get anywhere else,
let alone in under an hour.
So please either now or when you're done listening, I would really
appreciate it if you shared today's episode with at least one friend or family member. Thank you,
thank you, thank you. Starting with an LA update. So two thirds of this episode is going to be about
what's going on in LA. I would say one third is just kind of a timeline and an update of what we've seen in the last week and then
The second third is gonna be that Q&A and then the last third we'll talk about some other news. That's totally non immigration related
So starting with this LA update on Monday
I did give you a brief rundown of what we saw take place in LA last weekend
But my main focus in that episode was really on President Trump's
deployment of the National Guard and the legalities of that. So today, I want to focus on the events
that have taken place in LA over the course of the last week or so and tell you what's true and
what's not, because I know there's a lot of conflicting information out there about the
sequence of events, whether the violence started
before the National Guard was deployed, et cetera, et cetera.
So how I would like to do this is I'll give you
sort of a timeline of what we have seen take place,
and then we'll do a Q and A where I'll answer some
of your more specific questions about ICE,
the deportation efforts, the raids, all those things.
So last Friday, ICE agents carried out a raid
at a Home Depot and at a clothing manufacturing site,
both near downtown LA.
Reports say that at the Home Depot raid,
the day laborers, the migrants that were there
started running, someone started yelling ICE,
they started running, and then the ICE agents
started running after people in the parking lot.
I mean, actually, just so that I'm totally clear on that,
I do believe it was Homeland Security agents.
I just don't wanna give you any false information,
but either way, law enforcement,
immigration officials were running after them.
Meanwhile, aerial footage taken by a local outlet in LA
shows Homeland Security agents,
specifically at a clothing
manufacturing site, loading two white vans with people in handcuffs.
There was a small crowd outside of that facility who unsuccessfully tried to stop the vans
from driving away.
One person was seen lying in the road at one point in the path of those cars trying to
stop them.
So this was around 3 p.m. local time on Friday. Between the raid at Home Depot and the raid at
the clothing manufacturing site, more than 40 migrants were arrested. Hours later, that same
night, so Friday night, a bigger crowd gathered outside of a federal building complex downtown,
and this is where that detention facility is, as well as the federal courthouse. The group specifically gathered there because
there were news reports that migrants were being detained in the basement of that detention center.
According to outlets like CBS News, who heard from some of the attorneys that represent these
undocumented immigrants, many of them were taken into custody when they appeared for their check-in appointments and then they were brought to the
basement and held there in these rooms that can reportedly fit up to 30 people
at one time. One attorney told CBS that a couple and their two children, one of
those children is a US citizen, spent the night in a room with no beds and limited
access to food and water. The father of that family had previously been issued a stay of removal, which prohibits him from
being deported, but he and his family were detained anyway. As of last Friday,
he was still being detained, but his wife and two kids were released last
Wednesday because the wife needed medical attention due to a high-risk
pregnancy. So amid stories like that one, people started gathering outside of this detention facility. Video footage shows
these protesters vandalizing the building, heckling police, throwing bottles
and other objects at the officers who were using shields to protect themselves.
At this point, police in riot gear are seen confronting protesters with batons and what appears to be tear gas launchers. Sometime around 630 that night, federal authorities had
asked the LAPD to assist them and the LAPD says it arrived about an hour later.
It said its response time was delayed due to traffic, demonstrators, and by the
fact that federal agents had deployed irritants into the crowd prior to their arrival.
Notably, the DHS said that the LAPD's response time was closer to two hours, not one, and
that ICE had requested assistance multiple times before the LAPD eventually arrived.
At around 7 p.m. local time on Friday, the LAPD declared the area around the courthouse
in downtown LA an unlawful
assembly area, meaning people could not assemble there and if they did, they would be arrested.
Saturday morning, around 10.15, the LA Sheriff's Department gets a report that there's a large
crowd gathering in Paramount, California, which is a small suburb of LA.
Apparently, people thought that ICE was preparing to conduct another raid, time at the Paramount Home Depot location and the reason they thought
this was because federal law enforcement officers were outside of that Home Depot
location around 930 that morning. However, LA's mayor says that there were no ICE
raids in Paramount or anywhere else in LA County on Saturday and that federal
law enforcement were only present in that area because they were staging at an office. Deputies ordered the crowd to
leave and fired tear gas and flash bangs when people refused to leave. Around that
same time another protest broke out in Compton. In Compton there were reports of
vandalism and a car being set on fire. Then around 6 p. 6pm that night, so we're still talking about Saturday, this is
when Trump signed that presidential memo that authorized
the deployment of 2000 National Guard members to LA. LA's mayor
and California's governor both immediately objected to it and
said that the deployment would only increase tensions. Now,
until recently, within the last day or two, it was unclear
whether President Trump
and Governor Newsom had talked
before the National Guard was deployed.
And Trump has since shared a screenshot
of his phone call with Governor Newsom,
which lasted about 16 minutes
and took place at 1.23 a.m. on June 7th.
Keep in mind that despite authorizing the deployment
Saturday night, and you know, the country finding outizing the deployment Saturday night and the country
finding out about the deployment Saturday night, the first National Guard troops did
not arrive in the LA area until Sunday early morning around 4 a.m.
Throughout the night though, people had gathered at the downtown federal buildings where they
were throwing fireworks, rocks, glass bottles, and other objects at police.
In response, police fired what are called
less lethal projectiles and flash bangs.
So less lethal projectiles are projectiles
that are meant to cause injury, but not death.
These could be things like rubber bullets,
bean bag rounds, plastic rounds, pepper balls, et cetera.
So that's happening on Saturday night,
hours after Trump signs the National Guard order.
And I should also say
that I just talked about the fact that Trump showed that phone call with Governor Newsom.
Despite the phone call, Governor Newsom has said that he told or he, I don't know if he says he's
told the president, but he has adamantly denied that he wants or needs National Guard. So in Monday's episode, I talked a lot about the legalities
of that when the governor does not consent
to the National Guard deployment.
Because it's one thing to have a phone conversation,
it's another thing if Governor Newsom said
he didn't want it, it kind of turns into a different story.
When a governor requests the National Guard,
then it's permissible.
But if a governor doesn't,
that's when you start to get into the legal gray area,
which I did cover in a ton of detail on Monday.
Okay, so we are now in the timeline
where we're Sunday early morning.
So Sunday early morning is when the National Guard troops
get there and they take their position
at the federal building in downtown LA.
And on Sunday, that's when things start to get
a little more violent.
So people had marched onto the 101 freeway.
Two LAPD officers were hurt by motorcyclists
that were driving where they weren't supposed to.
People on the overpass were throwing things
onto the officers that were on the highway below.
They were throwing things onto the officer's cars.
And the LAPD chief said that people were shooting
commercial grade fireworks at the officers.
This is also the same day that that Australian journalist was hit with a rubber bullet outside
the detention center in downtown LA.
You may have seen that now viral video.
She's fine.
Her crew is fine.
But that's when that happened.
Sunday night is when Governor Newsom formally requested that Trump withdraw the deployment
of troops. And around midnight that night is when the LAPD declared all of downtown LA an unlawful
assembly area.
Keep in mind that the city of LA is about 502 square miles.
It is very big.
The area that was declared an unlawful assembly area was specifically downtown LA.
It takes up just under five square miles.
So a very, very small portion of LA.
Despite this unlawful assembly order, people lit fires and dumpsters and trash cans.
They were looting storefronts, vandalizing buildings with graffiti.
They graffiti the LAPD headquarters, the downtown federal courthouse.
So people were arrested at this point.
On Monday, the military confirmed that it was sending in
700 Marines and another 2,100 National Guard troops, though only the National Guard troops
were on the ground as of today. The Marines were still undergoing training as of this morning,
and it was not clear when they would actually be deployed or if they would actually be deployed on
the ground. Nonetheless, the Pentagon has said that the deployment of the Marines and the National
Guard troops would cost around $134 million.
Some other things that happened on Monday besides more National Guard troops coming
in and the Marines being ordered in, California's Attorney General announced that he filed a
lawsuit against the administration for its initial unlawful deployment of troops. LA's mayor
announced that on Monday alone, 23 downtown businesses were looted, and in response, she
declared a local emergency and imposed an 8pm to 6am curfew for a one-square-mile area
of downtown LA. That night, around 7.30pm, so about a half hour before that curfew was
supposed to take effect, the crowd was continuing to throw objects at the National Guard troops and the
police who were stationed outside this federal complex in LA.
Around 9 p.m., which would have been an hour after that curfew took effect, the LAPD said
mass arrests were being initiated due to people failing to abide by the curfew.
On Tuesday alone, we know that 197 people
were arrested downtown, which brought the total arrested
since Friday to more than 450.
Tuesday night, Governor Newsom addressed the nation
with a nine minute speech.
He said in part, quote,
"'This is not just about protests in LA.'
When Donald Trump sought blanket authority
to commandeer the National Guard,
he made that order apply to every state in this nation.
This is about all of us.
This is about you.
California may be first, but it clearly won't end here.
Other states are next.
Democracy is next.
Democracy is under assault right before our eyes.
The moment we've feared has arrived.
If you exercise your First Amendment rights, please do so peacefully.
I know many of you are feeling deep anxiety, stress, and fear,
but I want you to know that you are the antidote
to that fear and anxiety.
What Donald Trump wants most is your fealty, your silence,
to be complicit in this moment.
Do not give in to him."
End quote.
So let's talk a little bit about that lawsuit filed
by California's attorney general.
It alleges that the administration unlawfully invoked Title 10
to federalize California's National Guard without the governor's consent or a proper legal basis.
And again, if you have not listened to Monday's episode, that'll give you a lot of context
for this part of the story. The lawsuit says that Title 10 does allow the president to call up
National Guard troops in limited situations,
like when there's an insurrection, rebellion, or when enforcement of federal law becomes
impossible with regular forces, but only through the appropriate channels and under extraordinary
circumstances.
California argues that none of those criteria were met in this case and that the president
sidestepped statutory requirements by acting unilaterally,
absent any formal declaration of an insurrection under the Insurrection Act. The lawsuit further
argues that the administration mischaracterized peaceful protests as violent uprisings to justify
the deployment and in doing so violated the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which protects the state's rights to command their own militias, and unlawfully usurped the governor's authority
over state military forces.
The lawsuit frames the deployment as an unlawful, dangerous misuse of federal power that threatens
both civil liberties and constitutional norms, and accuses the administration of creating
a manufactured crisis by exaggerating the scope
and severity of protests in LA, most of which the state says had remained peaceful or had been
effectively managed by local authorities. Now, in filing this lawsuit, California requested
an emergency temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to immediately block
further deployments of federalized troops and to ban federal use of
active duty military personnel, specifically the Marines, for any domestic law enforcement
purposes within California. So it didn't necessarily ask that the Guard be stopped from protecting the
safety of federal buildings or property, but rather to prohibit the Guard from enforcing federal
immigration laws.
Keep in mind, as we talked about on Monday, the military, including the National Guard,
cannot carry out the law unless the Insurrection Act is invoked, which has not been invoked
here.
The only thing the National Guard or the Marines can do is support law enforcement on the ground
like the LAPD.
If that emergency request would have been granted, the California National Guard would have been placed
under the full authority of Governor Newsom,
meaning Newsom could have directed the troops to leave,
he could have directed the troops to stay,
whatever he wanted, but the federal government
would no longer have any say
and could not deploy any additional federal forces.
However, the court denied the state's request for immediate intervention and
gave the administration until 2 p.m. yesterday to file its response ahead of today's hearing.
That hearing kicked off around 4 p.m. Eastern time today, so there will likely be an update by
the time this episode is out, maybe even tomorrow. But as of right now, as of the time I'm recording,
we do not have a decision from the judge. And then the last and final update I have for you is that today, while DHS secretary Noem
was holding a press conference in LA, Senator Alex Padilla of California interrupted her with
questions and was taken out of the room by her security detail and handcuffed. So from the video
that's available to us, you can hear, you can see her and hear her
talking, and then you can kind of hear someone else trying to talk above her, which is presumably
Senator Padilla. It's hard to make out his initial words, but then you can hear him say,
I'm Senator Alex Padilla. I have questions for the secretary. And this is as he's getting pushed out
of the room by security and he's eventually handcuffed. After the press conference, Noam
said, quote, when I leave here, I'll find him and visit and find out what his concerns
really were. I think everybody in America would agree that this wasn't
appropriate, that if you wanted to have a civil discussion, especially as a
leader, a public official, that you would reach out and try to have a conversation.
For instance, I have left voicemails for Governor Newsom wanting to have a
conversation. Has he returned them? No, he hasn't."
End quote.
As for Padilla, he said at his own press conference, quote,
"'At one point I had a question and let me emphasize,
just emphasize the right for people to peacefully protest
and to stand up for their First Amendment rights,
for our fundamental rights.
I was there peacefully.
At one point I had a question
and so I began to ask a question.
I was almost immediately forcibly removed from the room. I was forced to the ground and I
was handcuffed. I will say this, if this is how the administration responds to a
senator with a question, I can only imagine what they're doing to
farm workers and what they're doing to farm workers, to cooks, to day laborers
out in the Los Angeles community and throughout California and throughout the
country." End quote. It was unclear at the time that I finalized this episode
whether Noam and Padilla had spoken to one another,
but that is where things stand as of today.
Let's take a quick break here.
When I come back, I'll answer some more
of your specific questions about ICE,
the deportation efforts, the raids, all of those things.
I'm just gonna be so straight up right now
and say I love ZocDoc.
ZocDoc is a sponsor of today's show
and what they are doing is seriously changing the game
in the medical world.
So you know how most of us humans will come up
with any excuse to not go to the doctor?
We'll say, you know, we're too busy,
we can't fit it into our schedule,
or oh, it'll go away, not that big of a deal,
or we can't find a doctor, let alone a good doctor or a doctor that takes our insurance.
There's just so many reasons to not go to the doctor,
but it shouldn't be like that.
We should be going to the doctor, right?
And ZocDoc is making that easy.
ZocDoc literally takes away every excuse.
ZocDoc is a free app and website
where you can search and compare high quality
in-network doctors and click to instantly book an appointment. And compare high quality in-network doctors and click to
instantly book an appointment. And I mean booking in-network appointments with more than 100,000
doctors across every specialty, from mental health to dental health, primary care to urgent care,
everything. The filters I love most are the in-network search and the verified patient
ratings because it's most important to me to find a highly rated doctor and someone who's in my network and ZocDoc just makes it super easy to do that.
Stop putting off those doctor's appointments and go to zocdoc.com slash unbiased to find
and instantly book a top rated doctor today.
That's z-o-c-d-o-c dot com slash unbiased.
Zocdoc.com slash unbiased. And with live TV, I'm not missing the game. It's kind of like I'm already on vacation.
Nice.
On behalf of Air Canada, nice travel.
Wifi available to Airplane members on Equip flight sponsored by Bell Conditions Supply,
seercanada.com.
Welcome back.
Now for a little Q&A. Let's start with a broad question, which is what is ICE, what is its
role and how is it different from the local state and federal police? So first ICE stands for US Immigration and
Customs Enforcement. It was created in 2003 by merging the US Customs Service
which focused on enforcement and investigations within the United States
and merging it with the Naturalization Service which oversaw the entire immigration process. ICE is an agency within the Department of Homeland
Security. So in the past I've talked about how the federal government has 15
executive departments and then many many agencies within each of those 15
departments. The Department of Homeland Security or DHS is one of those 15
departments and then ICE is one of the many
agencies within the DHS.
According to the DHS, the primary purpose of ICE is securing our nation's borders and
safeguarding the integrity of our immigration system.
Now, as far as how ICE differs from local state and federal police, ICE is specifically a
federal immigration enforcement agency. So it cannot enforce
local or state laws and it cannot enforce all federal laws. It can only enforce federal
immigration laws. State and local police generally cannot enforce federal laws and the reason I say
generally is because there are certain federal programs that grant exceptions. So as an example,
if a state or local law enforcement agency joins
the 287G program,
they are now authorized under federal law
to carry out immigration actions
under specific circumstances.
There are three models that ICE uses
as part of this 287G program
and state and local law enforcement can choose
which model they want to involve themselves with.
The first model is the jail enforcement model.
It allows officers to identify and process removable aliens
currently in their facilities
who have pending or active criminal charges.
The second model is the task force model,
and this allows officers to enforce
limited immigration authority
when performing routine police duties,
like identifying an alien at a DUI checkpoint
and then sharing that information directly with ICE.
And then the third model,
the Warrant Service Officer Program,
allows ICE to train, certify, and authorize
state and local officers to serve and execute
administrative warrants on aliens that are currently in their custody. So how it
works is this, the state or local agency wanting to join the 287-G program will
send a signed letter of interest to ICE and submit their desired program
model in a letter of agreement. Currently there are about 650 active 287-G agreements
across the United States,
and of those, 514 have been issued
since Trump took office in January.
So to be clear about the difference,
ICE has the authority
to enforce federal immigration laws specifically.
State and local police only have state
and local jurisdiction,
but they can assist in immigration enforcement
if they are authorized to do so under federal law
by joining a program like the one we just talked about.
If they are not authorized under federal law
to enforce immigration law, they cannot do so.
Immigration law is a federal matter
and state and local
police are generally limited to state and local jurisdiction, enforcing state and local
laws, things of that nature. Next question, is it true that migrants have been getting
arrested at immigration check-ins and elementary school graduations? Immigration check-ins,
yes. Elementary school graduations, no. So what we know about the immigration
proceedings portion of this question is that ICE has been arresting people at
immigration check-ins. Now when someone enters the United States, they're
detained and then they're released by ICE and they have to attend these
check-ins as a condition of their release. It's the way the government
keeps track of the people that it lets into the country. And it's at those check-ins where people
are getting arrested. Arrests are not happening at elementary school graduations though. There are
concerns that they could happen, so people living in those communities who are scared of the
possibility are opting not to go to their children's ceremonies this graduation season, but there's been no record as of now
of an immigration related arrest
at an elementary school graduation ceremony.
It's true that there's been some school related
immigration enforcement actions,
but nothing at any elementary school graduation.
So back in April, two Homeland Security agents
who claimed that they were not a part of ICE,
but rather with Homeland Security, attempted to enter two LA schools. They were denied by school employees but they were
trying to enter to talk to some of the students there. Another example, there were two high school
students in New York City that were detained by ICE in the last few weeks. One was detained following
his attendance at a legal hearing to seek asylum. The other was detained after a quote-unquote routine court hearing. We also know that an
11th grader in Massachusetts was detained by an ICE agent on May 31st when
he was stopped on his way to volleyball practice. Federal officials said they
were looking for the student's dad, who they say is undocumented and has a
history of reckless driving, but following that arrest, same thing. People
in the community were voicing concerns
about attending graduations because there were rumors
that ICE could be on school property.
But just to be clear, as of now,
there have been no immigration raids or arrests
at school graduation ceremonies.
Where else have raids been taking place?
Mainly at workplaces.
So just this past Tuesday,
more than 100 people were arrested in
Omaha, Nebraska at a meatpacking facility called Glen Valley Foods. On Monday, a couple of businesses
were raided in two cities in Texas. A few months ago, there was that raid at a seafood facility in
Newark. So mainly workplaces. Outside of workplaces, I've seen video footage of a man getting arrested
by an immigration
officer while taking out his trash in Miami.
That was just in his front yard.
Some are getting pulled over on the roads.
If there's a traffic violation and then they're detained, we saw one happen at a car wash
in LA last weekend.
I saw a video of migrants being arrested on a farm.
But again, I guess those last two examples are technically work sites.
So that's mainly workplaces, but they're also happening elsewhere.
What are these people being arrested for?
So when we talk about the workplace raids specifically, ICE has to get a search warrant
to enter these places, right?
They can't just go in.
They have to have a search warrant to enter these places, right? They can't just go in, they have to have a warrant.
And to obtain a search warrant from a judge,
these immigration officials have to show probable cause
that some crime has been committed
by the people that work there.
Now, this can be the actual employer hiring illegal workers,
or the search warrant can be based upon crimes by employees.
According to ICE, their recent search warrants have been based upon evidence of human trafficking,
money laundering, fraud, and most commonly, fake IDs or false documentation by the employees.
For instance, the raid that just happened at the meatpacking facility in Nebraska was
according to law enforcement based on evidence that people working there were using fake
ID documents.
The owner of the facility said that he used the federal e-verify system to check workers'
eligibility, but he claims that he was deceived by employees that had used stolen identities
of US citizens, which allowed them to pass background checks.
In other scenarios, like people who get pulled over or people who are arrested at their immigration
appointments, those arrests are most likely based on a lack of proper documentation and
being subject to removal.
In some cases, people who have no criminal record and are here lawfully and have not
violated any immigration laws are being detained
on suspicion of having violated immigration laws. But note that detention and arrest are
two different things. You can be detained without being arrested. Detention doesn't
necessarily mean you're going to face charges, whereas arrest does. So some of these people
are being detained because they're suspected to have violated immigration laws, but then at some point when it's determined
that they haven't, they have to be let go.
There's no basis to keep them in detention.
The only basis to keep them in detention
is if they're here unlawfully,
whether by crossing the border unlawfully
or by overstaying their visa.
That brings me to my next point,
which is criminal versus civil offenses.
Both subject you to removal,
but one means you are a criminal, the other doesn't.
This is important because not all undocumented immigrants have committed a crime.
Here's the deal.
Those that cross the border illegally have committed a crime.
Under federal law, it is illegal and a crime to step your foot across the US border without
lawful authorization.
Then there are the people that came here lawfully, typically on a visa, but overstayed that visa.
This is a civil offense, which, yes, results in deportation as well, but it's not a crime
and therefore they are not criminals.
By definition, they are not criminals.
So I'll try to frame this a little bit differently.
If you commit a robbery, you're a criminal.
You have committed a crime and you may be sentenced to jail.
If you get pulled over for speeding,
that is a civil offense.
You violated the law,
but you have not committed a crime by speeding.
There are consequences for both robbery and speeding,
but one is a crime and makes you a criminal,
the other doesn't. Just like there are consequences for both crossing and speeding, but one is a crime and makes you a criminal, the other doesn't.
Just like there are consequences for both crossing the border illegally and overstaying your visa,
but one is a crime and makes you a criminal, the other doesn't.
Finally, let's talk about asylum seekers. When people come to this country because they're afraid
to be in their home country, that is called seeking asylum. It is a legal process.
they're afraid to be in their home country, that is called seeking asylum.
It is a legal process.
All non-citizens, including asylum seekers,
have to carry proof of their status.
For asylum seekers, this would be the asylum receipt
and or biometric receipt, the work permit, passport,
et cetera.
If someone seeking asylum does not have their paperwork
on them, ICE can arrest them.
Because again, it is a violation of law. If they do have their paperwork on them, ICE can arrest them. Because again, it is a violation of law.
If they do have their paperwork on them,
there is no basis to arrest or detain them
so long as they're not suspected of another crime,
so long as they've appeared
for all of their immigration proceedings,
so long as they do not have an order of removal
against them. Okay.
So just because someone is here seeking asylum, there are still laws that they have to abide by.
And if they don't, that could subject them to arrest.
What are the potential constitutional violations we're seeing here?
Well, the constitutional provisions that come to mind are the due process
clause and the fourth amendment. So due mind are the due process clause and the
Fourth Amendment.
So, due process in the simplest of terms means you have a right to be heard.
The Fourth Amendment protects you from warrantless searches and seizures.
Both due process and the Fourth Amendment apply to everyone, even non-citizens.
What that means is that non-citizens cannot be the subject of a search without a warrant
unless they're within a hundred feet of the southern border. That is an exception.
But otherwise, it's a very bright line rule. You cannot be the subject of a
search without a warrant. And under the due process clause, they presumably cannot
be deported without a hearing. But we need to talk about the due process clause
specifically because it's actually a lot more complex. While
non-citizens are entitled to due process, we also have something in the United
States called expedited removal, which allows immigration officers to remove
non-citizens, to deport non-citizens without a hearing in certain situations. So in 1996,
Congress created the expedited removal process, which allowed immigration officers to remove
non-citizens without a court hearing if they had no valid entry documents or they used fraud or
misrepresentation to enter the United States. Initially this only
applied to non-citizens that arrived at US ports of entry without proper
documentation. But over time expedited removal was expanded. In 2004, President
Bush expanded expedited removal to non-citizens that were caught within 14
days of entry and within 100 miles of any land border. In 2009 Obama kept Bush's expansion in place,
but he didn't really expand it any further. In 2017 when Trump took office the first time,
he expanded expedited removal nationwide, so it no longer applied only to those non-citizens
within 100 miles of the border. Under Trump, non-citizens anywhere in the United States
who could not prove that they had been continuously present
in the United States for at least two years
were subject to expedited removal.
And in 2020, the Supreme Court upheld that expansion.
They found that it did not violate due process.
So now only non-citizens who can prove that they have been continuously present
in the United States for at least two years are exempt from expedited removal. Any non-citizen
who can't show that they've been continuously present in the U.S. for at least two years
can be expeditiously removed and is not entitled to a hearing before a judge. In addition to that,
individuals can only challenge their expedited removal order
if they are a lawful permanent resident
or if they were already determined to be a refugee
or granted asylum.
But other than that,
expedited removal leaves little to no options
when it comes to challenges.
So that's why I say that while non-citizens
are technically afforded due process, it's a lot more complicated than that because
of expedited removal. And on the topic of due process and expedited removal, I
found a pretty interesting statistic from the ACLU which was provided in 2014
while Obama was in office. And that statistic said that in 1995, 1,400 immigrants were subject to non-judicial removals,
meaning they were deported without seeing a judge.
That number represented 3% of total deportations.
In 2012, there were 313,000 non-judicial removals.
That number represented 75% of people deported. Per this article from the ACLU,
as of 2014, only 25% of people facing deportation were receiving the chance to present their case
before an immigration judge. Now, the article is a bit misleading in the way that it presents
the information because remember, it wasn't until 1996 that the government enacted expedited removal,
so you can't really compare 1995 numbers
to anything after, you know, 1996, 1997.
With that said, numbers in 1997 and 1998
were a lot lower than what they are today.
Non-judicial removals peaked in 2013,
though last year they came close to breaking the record
and this year they may break the record.
We just kind of have to see how it pans out. Let's take our second break here. When I come back
we still have a few more questions and answers to get to and then we'll move on
to some other news stories. Get unlimited grocery delivery with PC Express Pass.
Meal prep delivered. Snacks delivered. Fresh fruit delivered. Grocery delivery on
repeat for just two dollars and fifty cents a month. Learn more at PCExpress.ca.
Welcome back. Moving on to the next question, is what Trump is doing any different than
what Obama did? Well, there's a few things we could talk about here, right? We could
talk about the similarities and differences in the deportation process, the raids, the
arrests, and I'm sure there's more you could compare and contrast, but let's cover those three things. So I think the reason that this
person asked about Obama specifically is because Obama deported about three
million non-citizens from the United States over his two terms, which is more
than any other president in American history. We'll see how that squares up
with Trump's numbers at the end of his second term, but currently Obama holds
that record. Now Obama's deportation efforts were more structured, okay? So the Obama
DHS basically set this tiered system of priority, and the first tier had top
priority, the second tier obviously had second priority, and then the third tier
was third priority. So in the first tier, the administration prioritized threats to national security, border security,
and public safety.
And this included individuals who were engaged in or suspected of terrorism, espionage, or
national security threats.
This also included those who participated in organized criminal gang activity, those
apprehended at the border, and those convicted of a felony or those
with outstanding warrants. The second tier dealt with those who had recently
crossed the border illegally, those that had knowingly overstayed their visa,
those that had committed a significant misdemeanor, or those that had obtained a
visa ID or immigration benefit by fraud. And then the third tier dealt with all other immigration violators, which included people
who reentered the United States unlawfully after being removed or failed to abide by
a final order of removal.
Now the reason that the DHS created this tiered structure is because of the limited resources
available for enforcement.
So the rationale that the administration cited to at the time was the fact that they had a limited number of personnel, limited amount of detention space,
and a limited number of removal assets. So ICE could only remove an estimated 400,000 undocumented
immigrants each year at most. Because of that, the administration prioritized the more urgent threats.
And that's why it's in that tiered structure, right?
The first tier was prioritized the most, then the second, then the third.
In addition to this tiered structure, both sets of Obama era memos emphasized that prosecutorial
discretion had to be used in order to determine the appropriate level of enforcement against
an individual.
So officers actually had to take a look at things like an individual's ties and contributions to the community,
whether that person's spouse is pregnant or nursing,
whether the person is a veteran, a minor, an elderly individual, a victim of domestic violence, etc. etc.
The Obama-era deportations were a bit more organized
as illustrated by that tiered structure that we just went over, as well as those prosecutorial
discretion guidelines. By contrast, in Trump's first administration, as well as what we're seeing now,
there's less structure. What do I mean by that? Well, when Trump first took office in 2017,
he issued this executive order which led to DHS guidance,
that basically set out seven categories of people
that should be removed.
The categories were not broken down by tiers,
but rather given equal weight, right?
Some of those categories included people
that had been convicted of or charged with a crime,
have abused any program related
to the receipt of public benefits,
those that are subject to a final order of removal but haven't complied, etc. It's just
kind of basically one category of seven things and it says if any non-citizens have done any
of these things, they are removable. When it comes to prosecutorial discretion during Trump's first
administration, there were also no positive or negative factors
set forth in the DHS guidance like we saw with Obama.
So those factors like ties to the community, a pregnant spouse, etc. Those were not explicitly noted.
Trump's DHS instead said that prosecutorial discretion was to be made on a case-by-case basis and
also said that prosecutorial discretion was not to be
exercised in a way that exempts or excludes a specified class or category of non-citizens
from immigration enforcement actions. Most recently on Trump's first day in office of this current
term, he did away with prosecutorial discretion. So instead, everyone in removal proceedings is a priority.
Now, when we talk about raids
and we compare and contrast the raids,
Obama carried out the same workplace raids we're seeing now,
but definitely less than other presidents who have done so.
And this is because Obama prioritized
the prosecution of employers who knowingly hired
workers illegally and not the workers who were submitting false documents.
So instead of focusing on raids at work sites to target employees like President Bush had
done before him and now we're seeing President Trump do, ICE under Obama focused on audits
of employers I-9 forms and then in some cases,
followed up with on-site law enforcement.
Media reports in 2010 and 2011
called these ICE audits silent raids
because they would often lead to employees getting fired
once the employers were notified
of the irregularities on the I-9 forms.
Despite Obama's change in approach though,
workers were still getting arrested during these raids.
So it's not that the workplace raids stopped under Obama,
but they were significantly decreased from the Bush era
and definitely from what we're seeing now.
So that's the compare and contrast
when it comes to workplace raids.
And then finally, we'll talk about
the arrests of non-criminals.
So first of all, let's note there's a difference
between deportations and arrests.
We're talking about arrests right now. In 2016, Obama's ICE arrested
110,000 immigrants, 16% of whom did not have a criminal record. In 2017, Trump's
ICE arrested roughly 155,000 immigrants, 30% of whom did not have a
criminal record. Right now, it's too early to tell how many people
being arrested by ICE do and don't have criminal records.
So that's why I think it's best to kind of look back in time
until we have those updated numbers.
Okay, next question.
Can even non-criminal immigrants lawfully be arrested?
Yes, ICE can legally arrest immigrants
that do not have a criminal background
so long as there is another
reason to arrest them, such as them being in the country unlawfully. And this goes back to the
question or the conversation about criminal offenses versus civil offenses. Remember,
it's a crime to cross the border. It's not a crime to overstay a visa after coming in lawfully,
but it is a civil offense which you can be arrested for and deported for because you're still here
which you can be arrested for and deported for because you're still here without lawful authorization.
So yes, non-criminal immigrants can lawfully be arrested
if they are present in the United States
without lawful authorization.
Now here's the other thing.
ICE has the power to detain individuals
who are suspected of violating immigration laws.
So even if they haven't violated immigration laws,
but ICE agents suspect that they have,
they can be detained until it's proven
that there's been no violation.
So I just wanna note that too.
Next question, do immigrant children
have legal representation?
Yes, but this issue is currently playing out in the courts.
So here in the United States,
citizens are entitled to representation,
but non-citizens are not.
Some aspects of the Constitution apply to everyone,
regardless of citizenship status, like due process,
but other aspects of the Constitution do not.
Non-citizens are not entitled to representation.
Non-citizen children are a different story though
because of federal laws.
So one example is the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008.
That law mandated that unaccompanied minors have legal counsel to protect them from mistreatment
and exploitation.
One of the biggest providers of legal aid services to unaccompanied migrant children
is the Acacia Center for Justice.
They have a contract with the government that allows them to provide these services through federal funding. But in March, the Trump administration terminated
that contract. So without that money, they were at risk of losing the attorneys that
work for the organization and provide the services, which in turn would have left unaccompanied
migrant children without legal representation, unless of course, those attorneys decided
to do pro bono work and work for free. But given the fact that 26,000 children were at risk of losing
their attorneys, it's not likely the attorneys would even be able to represent all of them
even if they did agree to do pro bono work. So the Acacia Center sued the administration in April
and a federal judge told the administration that it had to restore the funds. That case is still playing out,
but the way it currently stands, yes,
unaccompanied minors are entitled to legal aid
through entities like the Acacia Center.
Okay, so that concludes the Q&A.
I hope that gives you a lot more clarity on the situation
and I hope you learned at least one new thing.
Let's switch gears a little bit and talk about some non-immigration news from this week.
Earlier this week, HHS Secretary RFK Jr. removed all 17 members on the Advisory Committee on
Immunization Practices, or the ACIP.
He subsequently announced eight new members.
So let's talk about what the ACIP is for a second.
It's an independent agency that advises the CDC on how vaccines should be used in the United
States. So who should receive available vaccines? When should vaccines be given?
What are some special circumstances that could affect vaccine scheduling? What are
safety concerns? Things like that. This independent agency is composed of
scientists and experts in the field like vaccine and infectious disease experts who evaluate vaccine data and develop recommendations on topics like vaccine scheduling.
Members of the committee are appointed to the ACIP by the HHS secretary and typically serve a four-year term. Now, most of the members on the committee that were just removed by Kennedy were serving terms that did
not expire until 2028. So on Monday, Secretary Kennedy announced in a Wall
Street Journal op-ed the removal of all 17 voting members of the ACIP. In his
announcement, he claimed that public trust had been eroded and he argued,
quote, a clean sweep is needed to reestablish public confidence
in vaccine science.
He also outlined a history of corruption at the ACIP
as his reasoning for the removals, he wrote,
the committee has been plagued
with persistent conflicts of interest
and has become little more than a rubber stamp
for any vaccine.
It has never recommended against a vaccine,
even those later withdrawn for safety reasons.
It has failed to scrutinize vaccine products given to babies and pregnant women. To make
matters worse, the groups that inform the ACIP meet behind closed doors, violating the legal
and ethical principle of transparency crucial to maintaining public trust." End quote. Specifically,
he referred to a 2009 HHS Inspector General Report and a 2000 House of Representatives
investigation, which he said found weak enforcement of conflict of interest rules.
He later wrote on X, quote, The most outrageous example of the ACIP's malevolent malpractice
has been its stubborn unwillingness to demand adequate safety trials before recommending
new vaccines for our children, end quote.
In response to this announcement,
former director of the CDC, Tom Frieden said, quote, make no mistake politicizing the ACIP
as Secretary Kennedy is doing will undermine public trust under the guise of improving it.
End quote. Opposition also argues that Kennedy is citing data that is out of context and outdated.
So Unbiased Science, which is a platform on social media, it's on Substack as well, wrote that the data that Kennedy cited is 15 to 25 years old
and is missing context. They said in their write-up quote, for example, he
specifically cites a 2009 report, however he failed to give the true context of
this report. The report focused on all 17 CDC advisory committees, not just ACIP.
The report did not find serious CDC advisory committees, not just ACIP.
The report did not find serious conflicts of interest.
Instead, it showed that many forms, 97%, had errors and omissions due to form errors, such
as putting information in the wrong sections or failing to initial and date in the correct
places.
A further dive into the data suggested that only 3% of the votes included some form of
conflict of interest,
and a member who should have recused themselves did not, but we don't know how many votes within
the ACIP were among those impacted." End quote. A couple of days after the removal, Secretary
Kennedy announced eight new appointees. If you want to read about them, I do have a few links
for you in the sources section of this episode, which you can always find a link to in the shown notes.
So how does this change affect you?
Well, the CDC bases its official vaccine guidelines
on the ACIP's recommendations,
which subsequently determines which vaccines
must be covered by insurance.
However, it's also worth noting that the CDC director
does have the authority to override the recommendations
of any independent agency like the ACIP.
Okay, let's take our third and final break here. When we come back, we have some more news to cover. Whether it's a family
member, friend, or furry companion joining your summer road trip, enjoy the peace of mind that
comes with Volvo's legendary safety. During Volvo Discover Days, enjoy limited time savings as you Welcome back.
In some more agency-related news on Tuesday, President Trump announced
plans to start phasing out FEMA. FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is currently
part of the Department of Homeland Security and its main role is to help people before,
during, and after disasters. So FEMA was initially created in 1979 under President Carter to
coordinate federal disaster response and to assist states that
were overwhelmed by disasters.
In 2003 is when FEMA became part of the DHS.
Now before FEMA's creation, the government would step in and help with disasters, typically
by relying on congressional acts.
There wasn't a centralized agency to oversee response and recovery efforts.
In the 50s is when the government started to shift towards federal coordination, but before that Congress would
just pass laws in response to different disasters across the country. Whenever a disaster would
happen it would pass a law. Back in January though Trump signed an executive order which
was intended to evaluate the effectiveness of FEMA. The executive order established a council with a maximum of 20 members co-chaired by the DHS secretary and defense secretary and per that
order the council was to look into FEMA's operations and assess whether FEMA is capable
of impartiality when addressing disasters that occur in the United States and then subsequently
the council was to advise the president on any recommended changes to FEMA to best serve the national interest. The exact
details of the administration's plans to phase out FEMA are unclear however Trump
did suggest that if FEMA were eliminated the states would be mainly responsible
for disaster relief and that federal disaster relief would be provided to
states more directly. This approach
appears to be similar to the pre-FEMA days. Trump also noted that the phase out would start after
this upcoming hurricane season, which runs until November 30th, and in talking to reporters in the
Oval Office he said, quote, we want to wean off of FEMA and we want to bring it down to the state
level. A governor should be able to handle it and frankly if they can't handle it, the aftermath, then maybe they shouldn't be governor." Trump went
on to say, quote, it's extremely expensive and again when you have a tornado or a hurricane or
you have a problem of any kind in a state that's what you have governors for. They're supposed to
fix those problems. It's important to keep in mind that under federal law, Trump cannot unilaterally eliminate
FEMA.
Dismantling it would require Congress to either pass a law or reinstate what's called the
Presidential Reorganization Act, which would allow the president to propose a plan to reorganize
or eliminate the federal agency.
Either way, dismantling would require an act from Congress.
It is not something the president can do himself. And if FEMA were eventually eliminated, the appropriated disaster relief funding would presumably go directly to the states,
but it would all depend on what Congress decides to do with it because Congress has the ultimate say over spending. They have the power of the purse.
the ultimate say over spending. They have the power of the purse. Okay, moving on to the next story, President Trump announced that his administration will restore the names of several
U.S. Army bases that originally honored Confederate generals. This decision reverses a renaming
process mandated by Congress and completed under President Biden, which aimed to strip military
installations of Confederate symbolism. Notably, rather than reinstating
the Confederate names as they existed before, Trump's new strategy gives the bases the same name,
but honoring different U.S. military service members who share the same name as the Confederate
figure. So I'll give you some examples. Fort Gordon in Georgia was once named after Confederate General John B. Gordon. It was renamed Fort Eisenhower, but it will now honor Master
Sergeant Gary I. Gordon. He was a Medal of Honor recipient from the Battle of Mogadishu. Fort AP
Hill in Virginia was renamed Fort Walker under Biden. It will now commemorate three black Union soldiers
who received the Medal of Honor during the Civil War.
Those were Lieutenant Colonel Edward Hill,
First Sergeant Robert A. Pinn, and Private Bruce Anderson.
Fort Hood, renamed Fort Cavazos in 2023,
will instead recognize World War I veteran
Colonel Robert B. Hood.
Similarly, Fort Lee will now honor Spanish-American war hero Private
Fitz Lee. Fort Pickett will now honor World War II hero Vernon W. Pickett. Fort
Polk will now commemorate General James H. Polk, a World War II officer, and Fort
Rucker will now bear the name of World War I aviator Captain Edward W. Rucker.
So, same names as they had before they were changed, just honoring different Fort Rucker will now bear the name of World War I aviator Captain Edward W. Rucker. So
same names as they had before they were changed, just honoring different people.
Trump had already made similar changes earlier this year by restoring the names of Fort Bragg
and Fort Benning, though both are now linked to non-Confederate soldiers who again share those
same names. To give you a bit of recent history here when Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act in 2021, it included a provision
to rename military bases bearing the names of Confederate officers, meaning it wanted
to change them from the Confederate officers names to other names. Trump had vetoed the
bill at the time, objecting to a few things in the bill, but one of those things he objected
to was the renaming clause. Despite Trump's veto, Congress overrode the veto, and that was actually
the only veto override of Trump's presidency, and it happened just a few weeks before he left office.
So the passage of that law led to the formation of the Naming Commission, which spent more than
a year evaluating these basenames and proposing replacements. By 2023, the Biden administration had enacted the commission's recommendations, resulting in widespread changes
to 10 military installations. The Trump administration says the redesignations are in
line with laws that prevent the Pentagon from naming bases after Confederate leaders or
battles, but critics disagree, arguing that the whole purpose of the new rule was to remove
Confederate symbolism.
Last story of the day before we get to quick hitters, the Supreme Court released six decisions
today, four of which were unanimous.
The other two only had one dissenter, so eight to one.
The court is finishing up its current term in the next few weeks, so we should start
to see some more of the controversial decisions get released soon.
They always save those for last. Today was actually a relatively low-key day though at the
court. It seems they're getting out all the unanimous decisions and then, you know, they'll
start getting a bit more controversial as we go. I'm only going to cover two of the court's decisions
today because I don't want to bore you too much. The other cases were just like boring procedural
cases. There was a tax law case in there. This episode is already long enough. I don't need you falling asleep on me in the last five minutes. So the first case we'll
talk about is Martin versus US. This was unanimous. And to keep it short, FBI agents raided a home in
2017 outside of Atlanta. The intention was to raid, they were executing a search warrant at an address
where they believed that suspected gang members were hiding out. Turns out they had the wrong house. But before they found out it was the wrong house, the FBI
agents detonated a flashbang grenade, they pulled a man from the closet where he was hiding, and
handcuffed him, and then they held the man's partner at gunpoint. After seeing the mail with
the home address on it, an officer realized that, you know, they had gone to the wrong address. So the men filed this lawsuit against the government, and normally you cannot sue the
federal government for its mistakes because it has immunity. But under a law called the
Federal Tort Claims Act, you can sue when federal employees cause injury while acting
within the scope of their employment. So that's what they did. They sued under that law.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuit,
finding that the agents had made an honest mistake
and because their actions involved judgment calls,
they were still immune under what's called
the discretionary function exception.
However, the Supreme Court said today
that the appellate court applied the wrong test
in coming to its conclusion. So now the case will go back to the appellate court applied the wrong test in coming to its conclusion.
So now the case will go back to the appellate court
where the court will have to apply a different test.
The appellate court will now have to decide
whether the agent's decision
qualifies as a protected judgment call.
And if it doesn't, they then have to apply Georgia's
state law to see if a private person would be liable
for the same conduct.
If a private person would be liable for the same conduct, then the private person would be liable for the same conduct,
then the agents can be held liable. The second case we'll talk about was also unanimous. It's
called AJT versus OCO area schools. In this one, the parents of a student brought a disability
discrimination case against the school district, and the lower court held that in order to succeed
on the claim against the school district, the parents had to show that
school officials acted with bad faith or gross misjudgment. The parents appealed that decision,
arguing that they shouldn't be held to a higher standard than any other disability
discrimination claims. And the Supreme Court today agreed. The justices unanimously held that school
children bringing claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act
are required to meet the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts.
So this case will go back to the lower court where the merits of the case will be assessed
under the same standards as any other disability discrimination claim. We should get more decisions
from the justices either early next week or mid midweek next week and I'll certainly let you know when we do. Like I said the more controversial decisions
will start coming soon. Now for some quick hitters. First a couple of updates
to the last episode we did on Monday. ABC News officially fired senior
correspondent Terry Moran following his social media posts that criticized
Stephen Miller and President Trump. ABC News said Moran's dismissal was due to a violation of the company's policies, and Moran announced
that he will be continuing his reporting on Substack.
Elon Musk called President Trump on Monday night to apologize for his social media post
last week. Musk's call reportedly came after Vice President Vance and White House Chief
of Staff Suzy Wilde spoke with Musk late last week asking him to end the fight. Following Monday's call, Musk posted to X on Wednesday, quote, I regret some of my posts
about President Trump last week.
They went too far, end quote.
This weekend, Washington, D.C. will put on a parade to celebrate the U.S. Army's 250th
anniversary.
The parade also happens to fall on President Trump's 79th birthday and Flag Day.
And this is something the Army's, well, I should say the Army's been preparing for some sort
of celebration for over a year now, but the idea of a parade began more recently with
President Trump.
The parade is expected to cost between $25 and $45 million, and more than 6,000 soldiers
from all Army divisions are expected to participate.
If you do want to know more about the parade, I did talk about it in the rumor has it segment of my May 8th episode. The
HHS is rehiring more than 450 previously fired employees to multiple divisions
within the CDC. Secretary Kennedy told CBS News in April that this was always
part of the plan. He said personnel that should not have been cut were cut and
were reinstating them and that was always part of the plan. He said at DOGE
we talked about this from the beginning
we're going to do 80% cuts but 20% of those are going to have to be
reinstated because we'll make mistakes." End quote. So the National Center for
HIV, Hepatitis, STD and Tuberculosis Prevention will see the most employees
return, 214 employees, while the National Center for Environmental Health will see
158 employees return. The immediate office of Environmental Health will see 158 employees return, the
immediate office of the director will see 71 employees return, and the Global Health
Center will see 24 employees return.
Effective yesterday, the Trump administration is now requiring everyone who applies for
permanent residency to submit a medical examination form.
Pending applications without an accompanying medical exam form will be denied. So to give some context, as of December of last year all people seeking
permanent residency in the United States have to undergo a medical exam by a
civil surgeon and submit their vaccination record, but until now only
certain people who could be inadmissible on medical grounds were
required to file this medical exam form. Now all people who apply
for permanent residency will have to. And lastly, the House agreed to President Trump's
rescission proposal today, sending it to the Senate. If passed by the Senate, it would
cut $9.4 billion in federal spending, mostly for foreign aid and public radio. If you want
more on that rescission package, tune in to last Thursday's's episode that's my June 5th episode.
That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here as always and I do have a new newsletter going out tomorrow morning which covers the top headlines and not just politics but also
business, pop culture, health, and international news so definitely make sure you are signed up
for that if you're not already. I always have the sign up link in the show notes so it's really easy to find. Have a great weekend and I will talk to you on Monday.