UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (6/16/25): What We Know About the Minnesota Shooting Suspect, Vance Boelter; "No Kings" Protests and Army Parade; ICE Directed to Stop Hospitality and Agriculture Raids; and More.

Episode Date: June 16, 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: Court Blocks Trump's Control Over National Guard; Appellate Court Reverses (2:05) ICE Memo Directs Agents to Stop Conducting Workplace Raids In These Locations (6:44) CMS Reportedly Shares Medicaid Data With DHS; Here's What You Need to Know About the Legalities (10:42) States Pull Back State Medicaid Healthcare Programs for Undocumented Immigrants (16:39) Everything We Know About the Targeted Minnesota Attacks and the Shooter (20:14) "No Kings" Protests and Army Parade (33:12) Trump Releases 2024 Financial Disclosures (40:00) Quick Hitters: Washington Post Says It Was the Target of a Cyberattack, Trump Organization Announces Trump Mobile, 50 States Agree to Billion Dollar Settlement with Purdue Pharma, West Virginia Gov. Declares State of Emergency (44:34) Critical Thinking Segment (46:36) 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 Monday, June 16th. Let's talk about some news. Before we do though, I want to make a quick few notes. So first, I had a ton of requests to talk about the conflict between Iran and Israel. Here's the thing, I've said this before, I'll say it again, I don't like to dabble in international matters. I already have my plate full with domestic news and international news is just one of those things that once you cover one thing, you have to cover it all

and I'm just not quite ready for that right now. With that said, I understand why what's going on in the Middle East is relevant to the United States. So while I'm not going to cover the conflict in today's Middle East is relevant to the United States. So while I'm not going to cover the conflict in today's episode, if and when the United States gets a bit more involved in the conflict, I will talk about it then. Not to mention this episode is already fully loaded with domestic issues so I wouldn't have even had the time to dive into everything happening in the Middle

East even if I wanted to. I did cover the first strikes that Israel initiated on Iran when my last newsletter went out on Friday though. So this feels like a good time to tell you that I have another newsletter going out tomorrow morning. My newsletters go out every Tuesday and Friday morning. So if you're not subscribed yet, now would be a good time to do so. I always keep the signup link

in the show notes of each episode. It's completely free. You just need an email address. Now the reason I love the newsletter is because it's not just limited to politics like the podcast is and because it's incredibly skimmable. I cover the top headlines in politics, pop culture, business, health, and international news, but it's very much just the headline so it only takes you a few minutes to read. I do also include external links within the newsletter if you ever want to, you know, read more about a particular story, but the actual newsletter itself is very brief,

very much to the point. So again, you can subscribe by clicking the direct sign-up link in the show notes or by going to substack.com or the Substack app and searching for Unbiased Society. Now, without further ado, let's get into today's stories. I want to start by giving you an or the Substack app and searching for unbiased society. Now, without further ado, let's get into today's stories. I wanna start by giving you an update on what is going on with the California National Guard. So a week ago, we talked about the legalities of President Trump sending in the National Guard

without the governor's consent. And we talked about the fact that California had filed a lawsuit against President Trump challenging the deployment. Since the filing of that lawsuit though there have been some updates so let's talk about them. To recap the state of California is challenging Trump's legal authority to send in National Guard troops under Title 10 of the U.S. Code which is federal law as well as Trump's constitutional authority under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Code, which is federal law, as well as Trump's constitutional authority under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. So Title X under federal law allows the president to federalize the National Guard in three specific situations. The 10th Amendment to

the Constitution says that any powers not specifically given to the federal government nor denied to the states are powers reserved to the states. In other words, if a power isn't explicitly given to the federal government, it's a state's power. And again, if you want the full deep dive into Title X and the Tenth Amendment and you know, California's lawsuit, tune into Monday's episode. This is just a very quick overview before we get into how the courts actually ruled on this. So to quickly, quickly recap, California argues that because none of the specific situations that Title X lays out are currently present in California, and because the federal government doesn't have the explicit power in the Constitution over the deployment of the National Guard, the federalization of the troops was unlawful. Now, initially, California requested emergency intervention by the court, but the court denied

that request. That was on Sunday or Monday, I believe. Then on Thursday, a few days later, the lower court ended up granting Governor Newsom's request for a temporary restraining order against the administration, which essentially blocked Trump's authority over the California National Guard. Keep in mind whenever a court considers a request for a temporary restraining order the court is not considering the merits of the case right? The court is not considering the actual arguments, the actual Title X arguments, 10th Amendment arguments. No. The court is considering

four things. One, whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of the case eventually when it gets to that point. Two, whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm without a temporary restraining order. Three, whether the benefits of the restraining order outweigh the consequences. And four, whether the order aligns with the public's interest. If the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of the case, and the plaintiff will suffer a reparable harm

without the restraining order, and the benefits of the restraining order outweigh the consequences, and the restraining order's in line with the public's interest, the court will grant the request for a temporary restraining order. And that is what happened here.

So that was Thursday, late afternoon, but the administration immediately appealed that order, and that is what happened here. So that was Thursday late afternoon, but the administration immediately appealed that order, arguing that it was improperly granted. Specifically, the administration argued that the district court's order was an extraordinary intrusion on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief to call forth the National Guard as necessary to protect federal officers. So the administration appeals that order and I should also say in that order the administration also argued that the order put federal officers in harm's way every minute that it was in place. So hours after that appeal, late Thursday night,

the appellate court granted the administration's request to put the lower court's order on pause. So this all happened within hours, right? The appellate court didn't provide a rationale for its order, but it said it would hold a hearing on the matter on Tuesday, which is tomorrow. So now, tomorrow, it'll be up to the appellate court to determine whether the lower court

properly granted that temporary restraining order. And in doing so, the appellate court will consider the same four factors that the lower court considered. From there, the losing party could always take the appellate court's decision to the Supreme Court. But keep in mind, and this is important, the only thing at issue in this current moment is the request for a temporary restraining order. The courts have not addressed the actual merits of the case. That will come later. The current issue is only whether President Trump or Governor Newsom has control over the California National Guard while the court considers the actual arguments in the case. Okay, moving on. According to an email sent

by a senior ICE official, ICE officials have been directed to stop raids and arrests of immigrants in the agricultural and hospitality industries. Tatum King, the senior ICE official who sent the email, wrote, quote, effective today, please hold on all worksite enforcement investigations and operations on agriculture, including aquaculture and meatpacking plants, restaurants and operating hotels. End quote. The agents were also instructed not to arrest non-criminal collaterals, referring to people who are undocumented but have not committed any crimes. Put another way when it comes to hospitality and agriculture industries, only individuals who committed crimes can be investigated and arrested. This memo comes after the Trump administration said that all undocumented immigrants would be targeted

in this mass deportation campaign, which included both the undocumented immigrants who have committed a crime and those that had violated US immigration law but not necessarily committed a crime and that goes back to the conversation from last week where we talked about how not everyone who has violated immigration law has committed a crime. Some violations are criminal offenses, other violations are civil offenses. Trump said on Thursday that the immigration crackdown might be hurting essential industries. That's ultimately what prompted this email from ICE to avoid these particular industries. Trump posted a truth social quote, our great farmers

and people in the hotel and leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long-time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace. We must protect our farmers, but get the criminals out of the USA. Changes are coming." And quote, according to a White House official,

Trump's post and the accompanying directive for ICE came after he was informed by the Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rawlins, that farmers were expressing some concern about their businesses being hurt by these ICE raids. Rawlins' concerns that came from these farmers echoed those of Republicans from rural states who complained actually during Trump's first term that his immigration crackdown would end up hurting their agriculture industries. Notably in LA where protests against the ice raids are currently happening, those raids were at certain work sites like Home Depot and a clothing

manufacturing factory, but there were other raids that took place as well, one at an agricultural field in Oxnard, California, and a meat processing plant in Omaha, Nebraska. So with this memo, you know, the raids at the other workplaces like Home Depot or the clothing manufacturing site, those are still permissible, but any raid that would be at an agricultural location or a hospitality location is off limits.

With that said, the immigration crackdown is still very much in effect. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller is currently pushing for minimum 3,000 arrests per day. That was, of course, before this new memo directing ICE to stay away from certain industries. Most recently last night, Trump posted to Truth Social in part, quote, "...our nation's ICE officers have shown incredible strength, determination, and courage as they facilitate a very important mission, the largest mass deportation operation of illegal aliens in history. ICE officers are herewith ordered by notice of this truth to do

all in their power to achieve the very important goal of delivering the single largest mass deportation program in history. In order to achieve this, we must expand efforts to detain and deport illegal aliens in America's largest cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, where millions upon millions of illegal aliens reside." This next story is a related one. So according to a report from the Associated Press, the Department of Health and Human Services ordered the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services or CMS to share various Medicaid data sets with the DHS. The specific data that was shared included names, addresses, social security numbers, as well as immigration status, and

reportedly targeted states like California, Washington as immigration status, and reportedly targeted states like California, Washington, and Illinois, which are all states that allow non-citizens to enroll in Medicaid programs that use state taxpayer dollars to pay for medical expenses. According to the AP's report, CMS staff objected to the transfer of data citing legal and ethical concerns over the type of data being shared. Specifically, they cited the Social Security Act and the Privacy Act of 1974. One CMS official said that personal data sharing is only permissible for directly administering the Medicaid program and that sharing data with DHS would violate a long-standing policy.

And we'll talk more about the legalities in a minute. The administration has defended the move. HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said, quote, with respect to the recent data sharing between CMS and DHS, HHS acted entirely within its legal authority and in full compliance with all applicable laws to ensure that Medicaid benefits are reserved for individuals who are lawfully entitled to receive them." Notably, neither immigration officials nor HHS officials have confirmed whether this data will be used for deportation purposes or instead if it's just being used to ensure that these state-run Medicaid programs are being executed properly. So to provide a little bit of context, this memo follows an announcement from CMS last month, which said that it would be implementing tighter oversight of state

Medicaid spending. And it specifically cited concerns that some states might be using federal funds to cover health care for people without legal immigration status. And in that announcement, CMS cited to one of President Trump's recent executive orders, which has a stated goal of ensuring that no taxpayer-funded benefits go to unqualified aliens. Currently, under the law, Medicaid, and this context is important to really understanding what's going on here. So currently under the law, Medicaid coverage is generally limited to emergency services when it comes to non-citizens, because as we've talked about, we have EMTALA, which is a federal law that says, you know, hospitals have to provide emergency care to anyone facing an emergency situation, regardless of immigration status or ability to pay.

However, there's this other program we have to talk about that's relevant to what's happening here. So the Biden administration launched a program that allows undocumented immigrants to enroll in Medicaid with full benefits so long as the states agree to cover the costs of health care without using federal funds. States can only use state taxpayer dollars. The states that currently offer these types of programs include California, New York, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, Minnesota, and Colorado. Now the Trump administration has questioned whether some of these states are using federal funds to cover health care costs despite the terms of the program requiring that they only use state taxpayer dollars. So the CMS's recent announcement is in line with the Trump administration concerns.

Interestingly, and we'll talk more about this in the next story, since the start of the current Trump administration, some of these states that offer this Biden-era program have voluntarily implemented changes. As examples, California is freezing enrollment due to budget losses. Illinois is planning on shutting down the program in July, and Minnesota is planning on limiting their program as well starting in 2026. So again, like I said, we'll talk about that more in the next story. But for now, I quickly want to touch on the legalities of these data sharing agreements.

So the first thing that comes to mind is the Privacy Act of 1974, which restricts how federal agencies share personally identifiable information with one another. Generally, it's unlawful without the person's written consent to share this type of data, but there are exceptions, 12 exceptions to be exact. The exception that applies most to this situation

is the law enforcement exception, which allows personally identifiable information to be shared between agencies for purposes of civil or criminal law enforcement. The other law that is relevant here is HIPAA, right? HIPAA protects private individuals' health information, and HIPAA says it can only be disclosed under certain strict conditions. Under the law, sharing a patient's protected health information, which includes information like names, Social Security numbers, addresses, etc. is unlawful, but again there are exceptions like national security exceptions. So I say this to say that if these exceptions apply then the

CMS's data sharing order is likely permissible. But if these exceptions don't apply, it could be unlawful. Also, keep in mind that the HHS has broad discretion in defining and enforcing exemptions to HIPAA, and it was the HHS that authorized this disclosure to the DHS. So that adds another layer of protection for the HHS when it comes to any legal challenges. This data sharing actually reminds me of a case we covered recently where the IRS and DHS entered into a similar data sharing agreement. And ultimately the court allowed the agreement to stand

because of the law enforcement exception to the Privacy Act of 1974. So we could see a similar challenge here, potentially a similar outcome, but only time will tell. Let's take our first break here. And when we come back, we'll talk about some states pulling back on their healthcare plans for undocumented immigrants,

everything that took place in Minnesota over the weekend, and much more. Welcome back. Before the ad break, we talked about the states that are in the process of rolling back these healthcare programs for undocumented immigrants. Before the ad break, we talked about the states that are in the process of rolling back these healthcare programs for undocumented immigrants. Recently within the last week or so, there have been a few developments on that front

that I wanted to cover. In fact, I was planning on covering these developments already, and then that ICE story kind of tied in perfectly. So I was like, yeah, let's just include these stories right on top of each other. So both California and Minnesota recently approved similar measures to limit healthcare access for undocumented immigrants. But the specifics of those limitations vary by state.

So in California, the legislature endorsed a plan to freeze new enrollment in Medi-Cal, which is California's Medicaid program. The freeze will take effect in 2026. And Governor Newsom actually also proposed implementing monthly premiums, but the legislature was not on board with that proposal, so the only thing that the legislature did endorse was the freezing of enrollment. The reason that California is freezing enrollment is because California's program currently

serves about 1.6 million immigrants and costs the state more than $8.5 billion annually. Keep in mind, California is expecting a $12 billion budget deficit for the 2025-2026 fiscal year after having a budget surplus in past years. So a huge part of the state's savings to try to avoid that deficit will be this freeze on Medi-Cal enrollment. In fact, the freeze is supposed to save the state about $5.4 billion by the 2028-2029 fiscal year. Supporters argue that the enrollment freeze is a way to maintain coverage for those already

in the system without making broader cuts to social services, but critics say this move betrays California's sanctuary values and disproportionately harms marginalized communities that already face barriers to health care access. Similarly, in Minnesota, the legislature just approved a more severe change, actually, which is a full repeal of health care coverage for undocumented adults under the Minnesota Care Program, which is Minnesota's version of that same program California has. Minnesota's move was part of a bigger $66 billion budget deal. Currently, Minnesota has more than 20,000 undocumented immigrants enrolled in the state's program, which is more than the state anticipated for the first four months of the year. from January through the end of April, the

state paid claims totaling $3.9 million, which is slightly more than what it had originally estimated for the first quarter of the year. Projected savings from their appeal are around $57 million over the next two years, and because Minnesota, like California, has a projected six billion dollar deficit in front of them if they didn't make cuts this year, the legislature ultimately made the decision to repeal the program. Like California, some Minnesota Democratic lawmakers criticized the decision as morally wrong, warning that it undermines public health and the state's commitment to immigrant

communities, whereas other lawmakers said that the decision was about fiscal responsibility. Minnesota and California are the latest states to join Illinois in deciding to do away with or reform its state health care program for undocumented immigrants. Illinois is on track to end their program on July 1st after a recent audit of the program showed that the total cost was 286% higher than estimated in recent years and has cost the state $1.6 billion since inception.

Okay, speaking of Minnesota, let's talk about the very tragic events that took place over the weekend. A suspected shooter, Vance Belter, has now been caught after a two-day manhunt following targeted attacks on Democratic state lawmakers. State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband were shot and killed in what Governor Wall is called a politically motivated assassination, and the same

suspect also shot Democratic state senator John Hoffman and his wife multiple times, but thankfully they survived and are now both in stable condition following surgery. Despite not knowing Belter's motive with any degree of certainty, we know that he had 45 other political targets on his list. Interestingly too, and to kind of tie this back into the story we just talked about, these attacks happened less than a week after Minnesota lawmakers voted to repeal that immigrant health care program we just talked about. And the interesting part of that is that Representative Hortman was the only Democrat that voted with all Republican representatives to repeal it.

And similarly, Senator Hoffman was one of only four Democratic senators to vote to repeal it. And similarly, Senator Hoffman was one of only four Democratic senators to vote to repeal the program. So again, we still don't have confirmation of a motive. All signs are currently pointing to politics, even though that, you know, what just happened with the repeal of the healthcare program would seem to contradict that. But all other signs are pointing to politics, including that list that included 45 other politicians. So we'll get into more about what we've learned about his possible motive in a few minutes, but first I want to back up and talk about how all of this unfolded. Police first responded to reports of a shooting at Senator Hoffman's home in Champlain, Minnesota around 2 a.m. early Saturday morning.

The 911 caller, who turned out to be Hoffman's daughter reported that a masked person had come to their door and and shot their parents. Once police arrived they found Senator Hoffman and his wife who were both taken to a hospital where they got surgery and survived. At 2 24 a.m. Belter allegedly drove to another state representative's house but the representative and her family fortunately were not home. They were on vacation, so Belter left. Belter then allegedly drove to another state senator's house in New Hope, Minnesota, and parked on the street. At 236 a.m.,

after learning of the shooting at Hoffman's house, New Hope police Dispatched an officer to the New Hope lawmakers house as a precautionary measure. When that officer arrived She actually saw Belter parked down the street But she thought Belter was an officer that had been dispatched to the home So she proceeded to pull up to Belter's car roll down her window and try to talk to him But he didn't respond instead he just stared straight ahead, completely ignored her. The New Hope officer then went to the senator's house and waited for other officers to arrive, but by that point, Belter had left the scene and he

was headed for Hortman's house in Brooklyn Park. Like the New Hope Police Department, the Brooklyn Park Police Department proactively sent officers to Representative Hortman's house. But unfortunately, by the time they arrived, it was just a few seconds too late. Upon their arrival, around 3.30 in the morning, officers saw a Ford SUV parked outside the house with its lights on. Officers saw the suspect dressed as a police officer standing at the front door and just as the officers pulled up he shot an adult man who was the representative's husband through the open door of the house. He also shot the representative and that is when police shot the suspect who ran inside the house before running out the back door and getting away. Inside, police found Representative Hortman and

her husband unfortunately dead from those gunshot wounds. Around 3 p.m. Saturday, almost 12 hours later, is when law enforcement officials identified Vance Belter as the suspect. They released several pictures of him, one of which shows him standing at the front door of one of the lawmakers' houses, dressed like a police officer with a flashlight shining into the front door wearing a mask not like a covid mask by the way this is one of those silicone masks that you would wear for halloween i don't know if you've seen the picture of him but it is a pretty scary site law enforcement searched the searched his vehicle which he had left in hortman's driveway because he got away on foot and that is when they found that target list

of about 45 names. Most of the names on that list identified democratic politicians, but there were also names of leaders working for Planned Parenthood. Law enforcement also found flyers for the No Kings protests, which led officers to believe

that he might then target those protests the following day. And state officials ended up canceling all of the no-kings protests statewide. On day two of the manhunt, which was Sunday around 11 a.m., that's when police found Belter's second car on a highway in Sibley County, which is where Belter lived. Later that night, around 9.30, is when the report started to come in that Belter was arrested near his house. So let's talk about what we know about him and then we'll get into some more details that we've learned since his

arrest as well as the charges that he is currently facing. We know that Belter is a 57 year old man who lived in Greenisle, Minnesota about one hour outside of Minneapolis and as far as his political beliefs, because I know that a lot of people were talking about that, his party affiliation on his voter registration has not been confirmed. Minnesota voters are not required to declare their political affiliations when registering to vote. So it's unclear whether he opted not to declare an affiliation or if he did and it just hasn't been made public yet. It's also very possible, by the way, that it just hasn't been made public as of now and it eventually comes out. But right now

I don't have a definitive answer for you. A report linked to Belter's previous government employment listed him as having none or other affiliation and no party preference respectively. However, we know from Belter's best friend, David Carlson, who also described himself as Belter's current roommate, described Belter as a conservative who voted for Trump in the most recent election. We also know Belter is an evangelical Christian who has questioned American morals on sexual orientation in his own religious sermons, several of which he delivered on a faith mission in Africa. Carlson said Belter had sent him and another friend a text shortly before the attacks,

which said, quote, I'm going to be gone for a while, maybe dead shortly. So I just want to let you know, I love you guys both. And I wish it hadn't gone this way. I'm sorry for all the trouble this has caused. End quote. Carlson said when he saw that text on Saturday morning, he called the police to report it. But at that point point it was too late. The attacks had already happened. Carlson also told reporters and investigators that Belter had been struggling financially after quitting his job with a security firm to travel to Africa and had not been able to find stable

employment since. A pastor who knew Belter for his church work told CNN that he can't believe the allegations against Belter, saying, quote, of all the people I know, he would not hurt a fly, end quote. According to state records, Belter was appointed to a state workforce development board in 2016 by then Minnesota Governor Dayton. He was later reappointed by Governor Walz in 2019 to serve a four-year term which ended in 2023. We know that Belter served on this 60-member board with one of the lawmakers, but it's unclear whether they knew each other. The superintendent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension said they're exploring this possible tie and

that quote, there's certainly some overlap with some public meetings with Senator Hoffman and Belter, but they don't know the nature of that relationship or if they actually knew each other. Now, I had mentioned that security job that Belter's best friend said Belter had recently left. According to that security firm's website, Belter's wife is the president and CEO of the company. However, we don't exactly know, at least as

of now, what the dynamic was between Belter and his wife. We don't know if they were together or if they were separated. It's looking more like they were separated based on what we know about Belter living with his friend. And there's another detail that I'll go over in a second, but we don't know for sure what their dynamic was. All this to say, it was, is listed as the president CEO of that security company. And that security company provides armed patrols of properties and uses Ford Explorers

as their security vehicles, which is the same type of car that was found outside Representative Hortman's house. Investigators and officers are under the belief that he obtained his police uniform and car from his wife's security company. Now, police did stop a car in Minnesota while this manhunt was going on and inside that car was Belter's wife. She was with some other relatives in the car and consented to a car search. Investigators found two guns, passports, and about $10,000 in cash.

She was reportedly questioned by officers for a duration of time, but she was not detained. We don't know why. We don't really know any other details about that stop. So at this point, Belter is the only person that's been charged in the attacks. According to the request for an arrest warrant, law enforcement agents found three AK-47 assault rifles, a 9-millimeter handgun, a list of names and the addresses of 45 other state and federal officials inside of Belcher's car. After searching the nearby area where his car was found, they also found a ballistic vest, a disassembled 9-millimeter firearm, a mask, and a police-style gold badge. We know from other federal court documents

that Belcher texted some of his family members writing, dad went to war last night. I don't wanna say more because I don't wanna implicate anybody. Words are not gonna explain how sorry I am for this situation. There's gonna be some people coming to the house armed and trigger happy and I don't want you guys around.

End quote. US attorney Joseph Thompson said today at a news conference that Bolter had voluminous writings in many, many notebooks full of plans, lists of names, surveillance efforts that he took to surveil and locate home addresses and family members of these elected officials. Thompson said despite this, he has not seen anything involving a political screed or manifesto that would clearly identify what motivated him. Thompson said quote, obviously his primary motive was to go out and murder people. They were all elected officials, they were all Democrats. Beyond that, I think it's just way too speculative for anyone that's

reviewed these materials to know and to say what was motivating him in terms of ideology or specific issues." Thompson gave a detailed account of how exactly Belter approached the homes of the victims, saying Belter arrived in the Blackford with the emergency lights on and with a police license plate on the car. Surveillance footage then shows Belter knocking on Senator Hoffman's door and shouting, "'This is the police. Open the door.'" When Hoffman and his wife opened the door, Belter trying to flashlight in their faces and said there had been a reported shooting at the home and asked if they had any weapons on them. When he

lowered his flashlight, that's when Hoffman and his wife realized that he wasn't a police officer and they shouted, you're not a cop, you're not a police officer. Belter then said, this is a robbery and forced himself into their home. That is when Senator Hoffman attempted to push Belter out. Belter shot Senator Hoffman repeatedly and then shot Senator Hoffman's wife repeatedly. That is when he fled the scene

and Hoffman's daughter called 911. From there is when Belter proceeded to go to three other homes. Belter is currently facing both federal and state charges. His state charges include two counts of second degree murder and two counts of attempted second degree murder, which will soon be upgraded to first degree murder charges. The prosecutor was explaining that it's common for, you know, to first charge second degree murder because it's easier and quicker to secure a warrant. And then you can always upgrade the charge later. His federal

charges include two counts of stalking using interstate commerce, two counts of murder with a firearm and two counts of another firearms offense. Two of those six federal charges have a maximum sentence of the death penalty, but prosecutors have not yet said whether they are going to seek it. Notably, Minnesota does not have the death penalty. So if he does face the death penalty, it'll be on those federal charges, not the state charges. The maximum sentence for the state charges is life in prison without the possibility of parole. So that's what we know as of now. As more develops, I will keep you updated. Let's take our second and final break here and I will be right back. Welcome back. On Saturday,

millions of people protested the Trump administration and demonstrations across the country called the No Kings protests. The same day, the army held its 250th birthday parade. Let's talk about both. We'll start with the protests. There were protests in more than 2,100 cities and towns across the country, which marks the biggest single-day anti-Trump protest during his second administration and possibly the first administration as well. The largest single-day anti-Trump protest as of now was during his first term. That was the Women's March in 2017, which took place right after he was elected.

And the numbers from this protest over this past weekend, they haven't yet been finalized, but it is looking like it matched, if not exceeded those 2017 numbers. So it could become the largest anti-Trump protest between both administrations. We just don't have the final numbers yet. So the reason that the protest took place on Saturday is because Saturday was the same day as the

military parade in DC for the army's 250th birthday as well as Trump's 79th birthday. Interestingly though no protests were planned in DC where the other festivities were taking place which was by design. The organization that led the no-kings protests quote, we're showing up everywhere. He isn't to make action everywhere else. The story of America that day, end quote. Now, many of you wanted to know who was behind the No Kings protest, both as it pertains to organizing and funding.

We know that the No Kings theme was planned by an organization called the 50 51 movement. According to their website, the 50 51 movement started at the beginning of this current Trump administration initially on a Reddit page and then spread quickly on social media. The name 50 51 stands for 50 states, 50 protests, one movement. And the organization says that they fight to uphold the constitution and end executive overreach. On the webpage detailing Saturday's protests it says quote, they've defied our courts, deported Americans, disappeared people off the streets, attacked our

civil rights, and slashed our services. The corruption has gone too far. No thrones, no crowns, no kings. End quote. Note though that this was not the first protest from 5051. They've actually organized five anti-Trump protests since Trump took office in January with the first one on February 17th, but this protest, the no-kings protest, was definitely the biggest of the five. As far as funding goes, what we know is that 5051's national team says that it's not a formal entity but rather a quote fluid group of people who coordinate efforts nationwide and provide resources like training and a website that serves as a hub for local actions. End quote. The national team does not appear to accept

donations but there are local 5051 teams which are run by volunteers and those local teams do accept donations. Now the term local is a bit misleading because each state only has one chapter. It's not a bunch of local chapters within each state. So the local chapters are really state chapters and each state's chapter is set up differently. Some state chapters are set up as organizations that can collect donations while others are instead set up where they have a chapters are set up as organizations that can collect donations,

while others are instead set up where they have a fiscal sponsor on their behalf. For example, the Massachusetts chapter is set up as a 501c4 social welfare organization, which directly collects donations, whereas the DC chapter is fiscally sponsored by the political revolution PAC, who collects donations on their behalf. Importantly, the 50-51 movement was clear that these protests were meant to be peaceful protests. Their website says that violence of any kind would not be tolerated. So any violence that stemmed from these protests was not something that was promoted by 50-51. And for the most part, the protests did remain

peaceful, but there were a few exceptions. In LA, for example, there were reports of clashes between police and protesters. The police reported that people were throwing rocks, bricks, bottles, and other objects at the police officers. In response, police deployed smoke and flashbangs while trying to move the crowd away from the area they were in. In Virginia, a man was arrested for allegedly intentionally driving an SUV through the crowd, though no injuries have been reported from that incident. And then most notably, and this is the one that's really been talked about in the news, in Salt Lake City, police say an innocent bystander

was shot and killed during the protest. Apparently two men who were part of the, what they call the peacekeeping team at the protest, witnessed another man start to move away from the crowd and start manipulating an AR-15 style rifle. That's when the peacekeepers allegedly ordered him to drop his weapon, drew their own guns, and then the man that had the rifle started running into the crowd allegedly holding his gun in a firing position. And in response, those peacekeepers fired three shots in his direction.

One of the shots hit him, but unfortunately, another shot fatally struck a bystander. Police said that they are investigating the incident and they have so far taken three men into custody. Now, Saturday was also the Army parade. The parade featured about 6,600 soldiers, 150 vehicles, more than 150 aircrafts. It took place at 6 p.m. Eastern time, but throughout the day there were various festivities like an Army

fitness competition, a festival, remarks from President Trump and Defense Secretary Hegsteth, and the reason the parade was scheduled for this Saturday, June 14th, is because the Army was officially established on June 14th, 1775, which made this past Saturday the Army's 250th birthday. Saturday also happened to be Flag Day and President Trump's 79th birthday, so while the focus of the parade was on the military, Trump did receive several birthday wishes from members of the crowd throughout the program, including a group of guests who sang him happy birthday at one point. Army officials had estimated that the entire festival and parade would cost between 25 and 45 million, though the final cost has not been disclosed as

of now. Notably, the last time DC hosted a military parade like this was in 1991. That parade was meant to mark the end of the Gulf War, and it ended up totaling around 8 million dollars, which would be equivalent to about 18 million dollars today after adjusting for inflation. Before we move on to the next story, I just want to address one more question that a lot of you had, which was how many people showed up to each event this weekend. Keep in mind, the numbers we have are being reported by the organizers themselves. So the organizers of the protests estimated that more than 5 million people participated, while the White House Communications Director said more than 250,000 people attended the parade.

Obviously, we have to keep in mind that it's possible these numbers could be inflated, but unfortunately, I do not have any credible numbers to share with you that would dispute these numbers that were being given by the event organizers. Finally, our last story of the day, before we get into quick hitters and critical thinking, on Friday, President Trump's Certified Annual Financial Disclosure Report was released and

it's led to some conversations about crypto investments and President Trump's meme coin. So we'll talk about that more in a minute. But as for this financial disclosure, it was signed on June 13th, it was released by the Office of Government Ethics, it's 234 pages, and it doesn't specifically state the time period it covers, but there are details in the report that indicate that it covers finances through December 2024. As far as why these closures, these disclosures were made, all people that hold senior federal positions have to disclose annual finances under the Ethics and Government Act of 1978, including the president. Under the law, there are four required disclosures.

Source of income, gifts and reimbursements, the identity and approximate value of property held and liabilities owned, transactions in property, commodities and securities, and then certain financial interests of a spouse or dependent. and then certain financial interests of a spouse or dependent. So what's in Trump's report? In total, the report shows more than $600 million in income from various sources, and then $100 million in liabilities. One of the biggest income sources disclosed was the 57 million that he earned from his ownership stake

in World Liberty Financial, which is the cryptocurrency platform launched last year that is run by his three sons. This is different from his meme coin, by the way, which we'll talk about more in a minute. His disclosures also included large amounts of income from his companies, which in total generated about $50 million in revenue,

some more millions in revenue from real estate. Another source of income came from his royalty payments for goods that feature his name and likeness. So to name a few, the Save America Coffee Table Book earned him $3 million, Trump sneakers and fragrances earned him $2.5 million, and Trump watches earned him $2.8 million. The report also showed more than $100 million in liabilities, many of which are related to legal battles. For example, his liabilities include payments that are due to E. Jean Carroll, the woman who successfully sued him over sexual abuse and defamation. Now, the main reason people are talking about this financial disclosure report is because of his crypto activity. Quite a few of you have reached out

wanting to know about the legality of a president introducing a crypto coin and profiting off of it. But I want to note a couple of things here. Number one, these cryptocurrency disclosures have nothing to do with his meme coin that was introduced in January. These disclosures we're talking about right now only report through the end of last year. His meme coin was introduced in January. So we don't know how much he's made off of the meme coin. We probably won't know until we see this year's disclosures, which won't be released until next year. The second thing is that this situation is unprecedented, right? I mean, not only in the sense that Trump is the first president to create a crypto coin, but he's the first president to actively promote a crypto venture while serving as president.

And the reason that I say it's unprecedented is because we don't really know how this works. We don't know if it's allowed or not. There's no clear precedent or legal framework that specifically governs this type of situation because it's never existed. If we look at the law surrounding conflicts of interest, which could apply here under Title 18, Section 208 of the U.S. Code, Congress actually exempts the president and vice president from conflicts of interest laws because of the fact that presidents and vice presidents have so much power and any possible executive action might pose a conflict of interest.

So under that law, it appears that Trump's crypto activity is in fact legal. However, there are also other constitutional provisions to take into account like the emoluments clause that might prohibit this type of venture. The only thing I can really say for sure is that the legal waters are murky. There is no precedent to say whether a presidential meme coin or the promotion of cryptocurrency in general is legal or illegal. What we very well could see is legislation that addresses this exact issue now that it exists.

In fact, last month, Democratic senators and representatives introduced their own pieces of legislation to address this exact issue. Democratic senators introduced the end crypto corruption act of 2025. Democratic representatives introduced the stop Trump in crypto act of 2025. So, you know, despite neither pieces of those legislation actually passing either chamber of Congress, the point is they're now being introduced because this is now a potential issue. Okay, now for a few quick hitters.

Washington Post executives say a cyber attack on the company compromised the email accounts of several journalists and could be the work of a foreign government. In an internal memo, Post executive director, Matt Murray Murray said there was a targeted possible unauthorized intrusion into email systems and he said the company has begun an investigation. The Trump Organization announced earlier today Trump Mobile, which includes a new cell phone service and a Trump-branded smartphone called the T1 phone. The monthly mobile plan called the 47 plan is priced at 47.45, which is seemingly a reference

to both of Trump's presidential positions. And the company says it will provide a 5G service and says customers will be able to access the same coverage as the top three US wireless carriers, which are Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T. Trump Mobile is promoting unlimited talk, text, and data, roadside assistance, which are Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T. TrumpMobile is promoting unlimited talk, text, and data, roadside assistance, telehealth services, and free international calling to more than 100 countries.

TrumpMobile says its phone will be released in August as at a price of $4.99. All 50 states and Washington, D.C., plus four territories, have agreed to sign a $7.4 billion settlement with Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family. The settlement does have to be approved by a judge, but if approved it would resolve pending litigation against Purdue Pharma, which invented, manufactured, and falsely marketed opioid products as non-addictive. So to be clear, the Sackler family and Purdue Pharma would be the ones paying the $7.4 billion to the various states and territories.

And if approved, the settlement would also end the Sackler's ownership of Purdue Pharma and prohibit them from making, selling, or marketing any opioids in the United States. And finally, the governor of West Virginia has declared a state of emergency and deployed the National Guard due to heavy rains and flash flooding in the state. So far, six people have died and two are unaccounted for. The emergency declaration came after a residential building in Fairmont, West Virginia partially collapsed. Finally, let's do some critical thinking. It's been a minute since we did this because the episodes have just been so jam packed, but I know a lot of you have been missing it.

I've received a lot of requests. So for those that might be new here, my critical thinking segment is just to get you thinking a little bit deeper about a particular issue and encourage you to challenge your own beliefs a bit. It's not meant to be too complex. It's not meant to stump you. It's just meant to be a little challenge. So let's go back to the story about Trump's financial disclosures, but specifically the crypto of it all. What are your initial thoughts? Do you take issue with Trump's coin and him profiting off of it or are you okay with it? If you are okay with it I want you to question whether you would still be okay with it if a foreign entity were to buy large amounts of Trump's coin. Would that raise any concerns for you? In other words if a foreign entity amassed

a large financial stake in the coin and therefore had either perceived or actual influence over the president's personal wealth, would it change your level of acceptance? If you oppose the coin, what legal or ethical reforms would you implement to prevent future presidents or the current president from personally profiting off of branded financial ventures while in office?

And more importantly, how would you make sure those reforms don't overreach or unfairly limit legitimate income or business interests? That's what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. As always, don't forget to sign up for my free newsletter that goes out tomorrow morning and share this episode with someone you love.