UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (6/2/25): MAHA Report's Flawed Citations and Non-Existent Studies, Where Tariffs Currently Stand, What We Know Boulder Suspect, a Government Cover-Up, and More.

Episode Date: June 2, 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: Appellate Court Allows "Liberation Day" Tariffs to Stand; A Breakdown of the Tariffs the U.S. Currently Has on Other Countries (1:10) Supreme Court Allows Trump to End CHNV Parole Program for Migrants (9:22) MAHA Report Contained Flawed Citations, Non-Existent Studies, and Misinterpreted Data (16:10) Migrant Who Sent Letter Threatening President Trump's Life was Allegedly Set Up by Another Migrant (22:12) DHS Releases (and Deletes) List of Sanctuary Jurisdictions (26:41) New Documents Show Alleged Government Cover-Up (31:56) Trump Pulls Nomination for NASA Administrator (36:48) What We Know About the Boulder Attack and the Man Behind It (39:41) Quick Hitters: Free Childbirth Bill, PBS Sues Administration, SCOTUS Declines Firearm Cases (43:36) 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

When does fast grocery delivery through Instacart matter most? When your famous grainy mustard potato salad isn't so famous without the grainy mustard. When the barbecue's lit, but there's nothing to grill. When the in-laws decide that, actually, they will stay for dinner. Instacart has all your groceries covered this summer, so download the app and get delivery in as fast as 60 minutes. Plus enjoy zero dollar delivery fees on your first three source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics.

Today is Monday, June 2nd. Let's talk about some news. Before we do though, I just want to give you guys a quick shout out you guys being my podcast listeners Of course, you're just awesome and in the almost three years that I've been doing this I've noticed a pretty major difference between the people who actually listen to the podcast like on a regular basis and Those who only engage with me on social media the people who listen to the podcast are just different. You're more curious, you're more open-minded, you're more willing to hear both sides. And that curiosity, open-mindedness, willingness, and just overall desire to learn is not lost on me. As you know, this show is not about confirming your beliefs. It's about

informing you, challenging you, and giving you the full picture even when you know it's complex and complicated and hard to do. So thank you for being here. You are quite literally the reason that I keep doing this and I just yeah, I appreciate you very, very much. So now without further ado, let's talk about some news. Starting with some Thursday news that broke as I was recording Thursday's episode. So I was not able to update you with the latest and that is a federal appeals court allowed President Trump's Liberation Day tariffs to stand. So in Thursday's episode, we talked about how a lower court had put Trump's tariffs on pause, finding that he exceeded his authority under a law known as

the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which was the law that was used to justify the Liberation Day tariffs. Keep in mind, there are multiple sets of tariffs imposed under multiple different laws. So the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPAPA is what Trump used to impose those Liberation Day tariffs which consisted of a 10% baseline tariff on all countries and then the additional country-specific tariffs on top of that. But Trump had also used other laws like Section 232, Section 301 to impose other kinds of tariffs. Those other kinds of tariffs were not at issue in these rulings that we got last week.

So the ruling we got on Thursday specifically struck down the tariffs imposed under the IE EPA. And the judge held that Trump had exceeded his authority under the IE EPA because, although that law gives the president the authority to regulate imports when there's been a declared national emergency, it doesn't give the president the authority to impose these broad sweeping tariffs. Specific sanctions on certain countries, sure, but not broad sweeping tariffs. That is according to the judge. Right away, the administration appealed that ruling and on Thursday afternoon, just as I was getting ready to release Thursday's episode, the appeals court put that lower court's

ruling on pause, which had the effect of allowing the IEEPA tariffs to remain in place. Each party to this lawsuit now has until June 9th, if it's not June 8th, I think it's June 9th, to submit their brief to the appellate court and from there, the appellate court will consider the actual merits of the case, the arguments on both sides of this IEEPA issue and make a more final decision. Then from there, the losing party can try to persuade the Supreme Court to review the case.

Now, what I wanna do is talk about where tariffs currently stand because there's been a lot of back and forth, a few new negotiated deals, and I think overall we could use a little check in to see where we're at. I actually got a few requests for this when I posted the question box to Instagram yesterday asking you just what you wanted to hear in today's episode, so that's what gave me the idea. We know that in April Trump imposed these Liberation Day tariffs,

which consisted of a two tier structure. So there was a 10% baseline tariff on all countries, and then additional country specific tariffs on certain countries with which the United States has a trade deficit. That 10% baseline tariff is still in effect. It applies to all countries and it has not gone anywhere. That is still very much in place. However, the country's specific tariffs have

been paused for 90 days. They are paused through July 9th. The only country that did not get this reprieve was China. China actually saw an increase in tariffs. Eventually, 145% was the highest. Since then, though, both China and the United States have agreed to reduce their tariffs on each other by 115%. So that means the US currently has a 30% tariff on Chinese goods on top of that 10% baseline tariff. And that 30% additional tariff is good until August 10th. That was again a 90-day reduction agreement between the US and China. Certain products though are exempt from that 30% tariff on China. Things like smartphones and

semiconductor products. And again this 30% tariff and the 10% baseline tariff were imposed under the IEEPA and are therefore subject to the pending litigation that we're talking about. Separately, the US has Section 301 tariffs on China. Unrelated to the pending litigation, these have been in place since 2018. These Section 301 tariffs affect things like steel, aluminum, semiconductors, electric cars, lithium ion EV and non-EV batteries, battery parts, graphite, solar cells, and more. In 2022, President Biden, for the most part, left these Section 301 tariffs in place, but did grant 164 exclusions. Those 164 exclusions were just extended over this past weekend until August 31st. In addition, there's also a 25% tariff on Chinese steel and aluminum, which was part

of Trump's earlier Section 232 tariffs. So that's China. To recap, there is a 10% baseline tariff, a 30% China-specific tariff, the Section 301 tariffs that have been in effect since 2018, and then the 25% Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, and cars. Speaking of steel and aluminum tariffs, China is not the only one that has a 25% tariff on its steel and aluminum. The 25% steel and aluminum tariffs apply to all steel and aluminum imports. And Trump just recently, within the last few days,

said he was doubling the tariffs on steel, specifically from 25% to 50%. Keep in mind, these steel and aluminum tariffs were imposed under Section 232, not the IEEPA. They are therefore unaffected by the recent court rulings. Staying on the topic of steel and aluminum, the U.S. recently reached a tentative deal with the U.K., which as of now, exempts their steel and aluminum from the 25% tariff. Per the terms of the agreement, U.K. car tariffs will be reduced to 10% from 25% for the first 100,000 cars, and the UK committed to import more US goods, which includes Boeing planes. This reduced rate on US car tariffs is in addition to the 10% baseline tariff that remains in effect for all countries.

In addition to those 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum imports we've talked about, there's also currently a 25% tariffs, or sorry, a singular 25% tariff on imported cars and car parts. Notably though, car makers can get a lower rate if the car is American made. There's also a separate 25% tariff on goods

specifically from Mexico and Canada, as well as a lower 10% tariff on energy imports from Canada. These tariffs are meant to punish Mexico and Canada for allowing fentanyl and illegal migrants to enter the United States. And again, these 25% and 10% tariffs are on top of the 10% baseline tariff that is currently in effect for all countries. Important to note here, goods that are eligible for duty-free trade under the 2018 US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement are not subject to the 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico. And then finally, in March, President Trump said the US would impose a 25% tariff on goods from any country that buys oil and gas from Venezuela. And that is because of the ongoing corruption in Venezuela. This is something the United States

has been dealing with for years. So that is currently what's going on at the tariff situation. I hope that makes things a little more clear. Like I said, there's been a lot of back and forth, so it can be hard to keep track of what's going on, but that is where things stand as of today. They could very well change tomorrow. That's just the nature of these things, but that's where they stand today.

Okay, we're moving on to the next story, but I do just wanna say, I don't know if you guys can hear the rain. It is storming pretty bad here. I can hear it very well obviously. I just want to note it in case it's coming through the microphone. It's just the rain. Nothing I can do about it. Okay moving on to the next story some Friday news. The Supreme Court paused a lower court ruling that prohibited the administration from ending temporary protected status for more than 500,000 non-citizens.

Per that pause, as this litigation continues to play out in the courts below, the administration can proceed with terminating the temporary protected status of these individuals and deport those who lose their temporary legal status. So let's back up a bit. During the Biden administration, the then DHS secretary implemented and extended humanitarian parole programs for about half a million immigrants from four countries, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. These programs were called the CHNV parole programs. Under these programs, non-citizens could request temporary parole in America, which allowed them to temporarily live and work here for a certain period of time, not to extend 18 months. The

duration of a TPS designation is typically 6, 12, or 18 months, but it can be extended at the discretion of the DHS secretary. In fact, on January 10th of this year, just 10 days before President Trump took office, the Biden administration DHS secretary extended TPS for Venezuelans until October 2026. And before that, in June of last year, he had extended TPS for Haitians until February 2026. Because of those recent extensions, which granted you know well into next year the Trump administration went ahead and canceled the CHNV programs entirely. Now it's worth noting just because I didn't mention this a second ago when I was talking about TPS in order to

gain this temporary protected status in the United States these individuals had to one pass a background check two have an American sponsor who agreed to provide support, and three, be a national of one of those four countries that was designated unsafe by the Biden administration and was a part of this CHNB program. Also keep in mind that TPS has been around for many years through many administrations, but this one particular CHNV program implemented under President Biden is what is at issue in this case. So Trump takes office on January 20th and that same day issues an executive order that instructed the DHS secretary to terminate all categorical parole programs. In accordance with

this order, the DHS secretary did exactly that and terminated the legal status of individuals on parole through these categorical programs, that being the CHNB program. In response, migrants and immigrant advocacy groups filed a lawsuit challenging the termination of the program, arguing that the termination violated their due process. A judge in Massachusetts ended up blocking the DHS from categorically terminating these parole programs on the basis that the administration could not terminate the programs without providing a case-by-case review of the decision to end parole for noncitizens who had benefited from the programs. Note that this

order from the judge prohibited the administration from terminating the programs while the judge was weighing the actual arguments in the case. So this wasn't a final decision in the case, it was a temporary decision while the judge weighed the merits and the arguments. And interestingly, in this order, the judge agreed with the administration that courts cannot typically review DHS decisions to revoke individual parole determinations. But the judge noted that that prohibition doesn't apply to this case

because DHS Secretary Noem revoked an entire category's worth of parole determinations, which the judge said she didn't have the authority to do. In other words, if Gnome had only revoked the parole status for one particular individual, something she does have the authority to do, the court would not have been able to review that decision. But since this was a categorical parole termination, the judge said the court can weigh in here. So since this ruling was not in the administration's favor, the DHS took the decision to the appellate court, but the appellate court rejected the DHS's request to put the ruling on

pause. Following that rejection, the DHS went to the Supreme Court. Keep in mind, the administration was not asking the Supreme Court to make a final decision on the merits of this case. It was just asking the Supreme Court to put the lower court's ruling on hold while the litigation continued to play out in the courts below. And on Friday, the Supreme Court issued a brief order without providing any sort of reasoning which did what the administration asked it to do and put the lower court's ruling on pause. So again, this means that as this litigation moves forward in the lower courts, the DHS can terminate the

parole programs and start deporting those who will no longer have legal status. Now, we don't know which which justices voted which way on this, but we do know that two of the court's liberal justices wrote a dissent, meaning they disagreed with the majority's ruling to put the lower court's ruling on pause. They would have left the lower courts ruling in place. And those justices reasoned that the Trump administration had failed to adequately show that it would be permanently injured if it could not end the parole now, rather than just waiting until the dispute is fully resolved, and at the same time that the non-citizens in the dispute do face significant injury that exceeds any potential injury to the government.

Keep in mind a couple of things here. Number one, this case still has to play out in the district court. It's still in the beginning stages. So this case is far from over. Once the district court rules on the merits of this case, I'm sure it'll get appealed to the appellate court. And then once the appellate court rules

on the merits of the case, I'm sure it'll get appealed to the supreme court. The second thing to note here is that just about two weeks ago now, the supreme court similarly allowed the Trump administration to end temporary protected status for a specific group of Venezuelan nationals. But it was the same situation in that it put the district court's block on pause and allowed the administration to revoke temporary protected status and proceed with deportations while the litigation moves through the courts. The difference between that case and this one is that the decision from two weeks ago only applied to a specific group of Venezuelan nationals that had temporary protected

status, whereas this most recent decision applies to the CHNV parole program as a whole. Okay, so let's take our first break here. When I come back, we'll talk about the Maha report, this new list of sanctuary city jurisdictions, and more. Breaking news. A brand new game is now live at Bet365. Introducing Prize Matcher, a daily game that's never ordinary.

All you have to do is match as many tiles as you can, and the more you match, the better. We also have top table games like our incredible Super Spin Roulette, Blackjack, and a huge selection of slots. So there you have it. How can you match that? Check out Prize Matcher and see why it's never ordinary at Bet365. Must be 19 or older, Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you or someone you know has concerns about gambling, visit connexontario. Must be 19 year old or Ontario only. Please play responsibly if you or someone you know

has concerns about gambling, visit connexontario.ca, T's and Z's apply. Welcome back. The recent Maha report, which we spoke about briefly last week, has come under scrutiny with accusations of fake sources, flawed citations and misinterpreted data. As a quick overview,

this was a report made by the Make America Healthy Again commission in response to an executive order that explored causes of childhood chronic disease in the United States. For the most part, the report attributed chronic childhood disease to four main factors, which included ultra-processed foods,

chemicals in the environment, the digital age, and the over-medicalization of kids. Throughout the report, there were 500, more than actually 520 citations. However, since the report's release, multiple news outlets have found flawed citations, and some researchers have come out saying that their research was misinterpreted in the report.

It's been reported that of the 522 citations included in the original version of the report, seven of those citations mention sources and studies that cannot be found. To give you an idea of the nature of these errors, in one instance, a professor of epidemiology at Columbia University, Catherine Keyes, was cited as the author of a paper titled,

Changes in Mental Health and Substance Use Among US Adolescents During the COVID-19 Pandemic. But Keyes has not written any paper that matches that citation. Keyes told news outlets that while she's done research on that topic, she's never actually written a paper that matches the title of the one cited to in the Maha report.

Another section of the report referred to a paper that matches the title of the one cited to in the Maha report. Another section of the report referred to a paper on the correlation between sleep, inflammation, and insulin sensitivity, and that citation included a co-author who didn't work on the paper at all, and then also left out a researcher who did work on the paper. In a section describing media influence, the report highlights two studies that it describes as quote unquote broadly illustrative of how a rise in drug advertisements has led to more prescriptions being written for ADHD medications and antidepressants for kids.

But the two studies don't exist in the journals that they are listed as being a part of. While one of the two studies does list an author who does research of this nature, the study lists another author that people have not yet been able to link to this field of research at all. In the section of overmedicalization of kids, the report cites a paper called Overprescribing of Oral Corticosteroids for Children with Asthma, but that title is incorrect. The paper is actually titled Oral Corticosteroid Prescribing for Children with Asthma in a Medicaid-Managed Care Program. The researcher of that paper came out

and said that even with the right citation, the use of this research is out of context. And in an email to news outlets, the researcher wrote, it is a tremendous leap of faith to generalize from a study in one Medicaid managed care program in Texas using 2011 to 2015 data to national care patterns in 2025. In another instance, a medical researcher whose work was cited in a section about how screen time affects children's sleep,

told news outlets that the report mischaracterized her study. The study was actually done on college students, not children. The researcher noted that she does have relevant and applicable research that the Maha report could have used, but the report did not include

any of that relevant research. So those are just some of the examples. In response to the criticism, an updated version of the report did not include any of that relevant research. So those are just some of the examples. In response to the criticism, an updated version of the report was released on Thursday. As far as we know, this version does not contain any flawed, improper, or inaccurate citations or any non-existent studies. In the updated report,

some of the citations were replaced with different articles with similar titles or with real reports done by the same authors originally listed. The report has also updated some of its numbers and data. So in one example, the original report said that 20% to 25% of adolescents reported anxiety symptoms and 15 to 20% of adolescents reported

depressive symptoms. The updated version removed the percentage ranges and simply just left it at 20% and more than 15% respectively. So now it just says 20% of adolescents reported anxiety symptoms and more than 15% of adolescents reported depressive symptoms.

In another example, which we just kind of talked about briefly a second ago, the report had originally claimed that certain ads, quote, led parents to overestimate ADHD prevalence and to request ADHD drugs inappropriately, end quote. The updated version of the report changed that finding to say that the ads, quote unquote, potentially have that effect.

Now, there have also been some accusations that AI was used to aid the production of the report. I don't know that answer with 100% certainty, however some experts have said that the nature of the errors suggests potential use of AI. There's something in AI called hallucinations where AI will give you like kind of the the truth and like kind of the most accurate information, but it'll misinterpret certain things. Another example of potential AI use is that one citation included OAI site in brackets, which experts say is a marker that OpenAI applies to responses provided

by AI models like ChatGPT. In the modified version of the report, OAI site has been taken out of the citation completely. It's only found in the original report. At Friday's press briefing, Press Secretary Caroline Levitt was asked if AI was used in the production of the report and she responded, quote, I can't speak to that. I would refer you to the Department of Health and Human Services. So that is as much as we know on that. I would refer you to the Department of Health and Human Services. So that is as much as we know on that. I wish I could give you more, but like I said, I just don't have a for certain answer.

All right, within the last couple of weeks, a migrant was arrested and taken into ICE custody in Wisconsin after an ICE official received a letter threatening the president's life. But now law enforcement officials say they think the migrant was set up by another migrant who is currently also in custody. So let's run through a timeline of events here.

On May 21st, an ICE official received a letter from a man who deemed himself to be 54-year-old Ramon Morales Reyes, a citizen of Mexico, but living here in the United States. The letter read, quote, "'We are tired of this president messing with us Mexicans. We have done more for this country than you white people. You have been deporting my family and I think it's time Donald J. Trump gets what he has coming to him. I will self deport myself to Mexico, but not before I use my 30 yard 6 to shoot your precious president in his head.

I will see him at one of his big rallies." End quote. Reyes was arrested the next day on May 22nd. Now before this most recent arrest, Reyes had prior charges for a felony hit-and-run, criminal damage to property, and disorderly conduct with a domestic abuse modifier. Reyes was also the victim of a robbery and assault in 2023, which is set to go to trial soon and will play a part in this story in a second. According to the DHS, Réaz has entered the US illegally at least nine times between 1998 and 2005. DHS Secretary Noem responded to the arrest of Réaz in a statement saying, quote, thanks to our ICE officers, this illegal alien who threatened to assassinate President Trump is behind bars. The threat comes not even a year after President Trump was shot in Butler, Pennsylvania, and less than two weeks after former FBI Director Comey called for the president's

assassination. All politicians and members of the media should take notice of these repeated attempts on Trump's life and tone down their rhetoric. I will continue to take all measures necessary to ensure the protection of President Trump." End quote. Just a quick point of clarification there. FBI Director Comey did not explicitly call for the assassination of President Trump. I don't want that to get misconstrued. So what happened there was in a now deleted Instagram post, Comey posted a picture of shells on a beach placed together to read 8647. The photo was captioned, cool shell formation on my beach walk. The thing is is that 86 by itself can informally mean to get rid of and then Trump is the 47th president of the United States so put together many

people interpreted this as a death threat against the president and then when Comey posted it saying cool shell formation some Trump officials you know so put together. Many people interpreted this as a death threat against the president and then when Comey posted it saying cool shell formation, some Trump officials took that and said that this was a call for Trump's assassination. But I digress. Reyes remains in custody in Wisconsin and according to the administration will be deported soon. However, law enforcement officials now say they think the man that robbed and assaulted Reyes in 2023 is the one that wrote the letter to the administration will be deported soon. However, law enforcement officials now say they think the man that robbed and assaulted Reyes in 2023 is the one that wrote the letter to the DHS in an attempt to set Reyes up and get Reyes deported. According to Milwaukee Police Department records that were obtained by CNN, Reyes gave ICE officers a handwritten

note when he was initially arrested, which local investigators compared to the letter threatening Trump and found that the handwriting did not match. Furthermore, Reyes' daughter told an organization that assists undocumented immigrants that her father cannot speak or write in English so it couldn't have been him that wrote the letter which was written in English. Officials believe the reason Reyes was set up is because Reyes is a witness in the upcoming trial against the robbery and assault suspect. Therefore, if Reyes is set up is because Reyes is a witness in the upcoming trial against the robbery and assault suspect. Therefore, if Reyes is deported, Reyes couldn't testify as a witness against him and, you know, that would solve his problems. According to a source report to CNN, the alleged true

perpetrator of the letter made calls from jail explicitly asking for the specific DHS address that received the letter, which further suggests his involvement. And on top of that, in a May 1st phone call, the robbery and assault suspect can be heard talking about Reyes' potential deportation, should he have any run-in with ICE officials. The Milwaukee Police Department said it is, quote, investigating an identity theft and victim intimidation incident related to this incident, and says that no one has been criminally charged at this time. A senior DHS official similarly said quote the investigation into the into the threat is ongoing end quote.

However the DHS has not yet commented on whether they believe Reyes is the true author of the letter. Staying with immigration on Thursday the DHS released a list of sanctuary jurisdictions in accordance with a recent executive order, and some jurisdictions are now saying there's no reason for them to be on that list. However, as we'll talk about in a minute, that list has since been taken down from the DHS's website. So in April, President Trump signed an executive order titled Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens. That order aimed to identify states as well as local governments that were considered to be interfering with federal immigration policies.

And it directed the Attorney General and DHS Secretary to 1. Publish a list of designated sanctuary states and local jurisdictions within 30 days of the date of the order. 2. Update the list as necessary. 3. 30 days of the date of the order, two, update the list as necessary, three, notify each sanctuary jurisdiction regarding violations of federal criminal law and defiance of federal immigration law enforcement, and more. So those are just a few things that were laid out in that executive order.

In accordance with that order, the DHS published its list of designated sanctuary states and local jurisdictions late last week. Like I said, since then, the list has published its list of designated sanctuary states and local jurisdictions late last week. Like I said, since then, the list has been taken down. We don't know why the list was taken down, but it was up long enough to know that the list designated 13 states plus Washington, DC as self-identified state sanctuary jurisdictions. Those states included California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

In addition to the states, more than 500 cities and counties within 36 different states were listed as sanctuary jurisdictions. These local jurisdictions included places like Boise, Idaho, Nashville, Tennessee, Orange County, North Carolina, and Las Vegas, Nevada. According to a DHS memo, jurisdictions were placed on the list for several reasons, including restricting information shared with federal immigration authorities and providing legal protections for people within the country without proper documentation. DHS Secretary Noem said in part, quote, These sanctuary city politicians are endangering Americans and our law enforcement in order to protect violent criminal illegal aliens. We are exposing these sanctuary politicians who harbor criminal illegal aliens and defy federal law. President Trump and I will always put the safety of the American people first. Sanctuary politicians are on notice. Comply with federal law. President Trump and I will always put the safety of the American people first. Sanctuary politicians are on notice. Comply with federal law." End quote. So the list was up for a

short time and therefore the jurisdictions that were on this list became aware of it. And several of those jurisdictions have since responded to it. Baltimore's mayor said, to be clear, by definition, Baltimore is not a sanctuary city because we do not have jurisdiction over our jails. We follow our limited obligations as defined under federal immigration law, but we are a welcoming city and we make no apologies for that. We are better because of our immigrant neighbors and we are not about to sell them out to this administration. Baltimore remains committed to protecting the rights, dignity and wellbeing of our residents. We are exploring all options

to protect our immigrant neighbors and the funding appropriated to our city by Congress, including litigation." End quote. A spokesperson for the Denver mayor's office responded saying, quote, considering DHS has removed several Colorado counties from the list less than 24 hours after publishing,

it doesn't seem like they even know what their own criteria is." The mayor of Vegas reportedly told Scripps News, "...the entire city of Las Vegas is surprised. We have never been a sanctuary city. We are not a sanctuary city. We're not ever going to be a sanctuary city and I'm respectfully requesting that the DHS remove the city of Las Vegas from that list." The mayor of Huntington Beach, California, similarly said, "...we adopted a formal policy on this. It went before the council, and we unanimously agreed that Huntington Beach is not a sanctuary city. We took deliberate action to make our non-sanctuary

stance clear. I've done plenty of media interviews on this. There should be no confusion whatsoever that we are not a sanctuary city." End quote. Now, as far as whether the president can revoke funding for these jurisdictions, as he has said he will do, there's been debate as to whether funding can legally be cut from these states and cities. In May, there was a coalition of 20 states led by California that sued the administration over its threats to withhold federal funding for designated sanctuary states and jurisdictions. That case still has to play out, but here's what we know about the legal precedent. So a similar kind of situation happened during Trump's first term.

During Trump's first term, he signed an executive order which withheld federal grants from sanctuary jurisdictions. In that case, it was called City and County of San Francisco versus Trump. The court held that under the separation of powers principle and the spending clause of the Constitution, the executive branch could not refuse to disperse federal grants without congressional authorization. Notably, the Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue, but as we've talked about in the past, it is Congress that has the power of the purse and decides where money gets spent and how much gets spent, not the president. Let's take our second and final

break here. I will be right back to talk about a government cover-up, the terror attack in Boulder, and more. Welcome back. According to an exclusive report released by NewsNation, an investigator for the Government Accountability Project obtained government documents which suggest that the White House, along with other federal agencies, attempted to cover up the severity of the 2023 train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. The train derailment burned roughly 115,000 gallons of toxic vinyl chloride. It caused a huge plume of smoke which raised immediate concerns from not only health experts but also the residents in East Palestine. In fact, there are currently 793 East Palestine residents involved in lawsuits against the government agencies and officials who were responsible for the derailment cleanup. Now here in the United States we have a beautiful

thing called the Freedom of Information Act or FOIA. FOIA lets you and I request information from government agencies so long as the information doesn't fall under one of nine exceptions. Those exceptions being information that's classified to protect national security, information that's prohibited from disclosure by another law, trade secrets or commercial or financial information that's prohibited from disclosure by another law, trade secrets or commercial or financial information that's confidential or privileged, privileged communications between agencies, and a few others. But the purpose of FOIA is to help citizens understand the government's operations and, most importantly, to hold the government accountable. It's supposed to serve as a check against corruption. So an investigator for the Government Accountability Project asked FEMA to turn over documents related to the derailment cleanup per

FOIA, but FEMA refused to do so. So the Government Accountability Project ended up suing and they eventually obtained some documents. And those documents, according to this exclusive report from NewsNation, show extensive coordination between FEMA, the White House, the National Security Council, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Justice voicing serious concerns about health, toxins, and the unmet needs of East Palestine following the train derailment. But at the same time, despite this knowledge, they were telling the public that there was nothing to be concerned about. These agencies and councils had actual evidence of the possible

health effects of the toxins on residents of East Palestine, but none of this was told to the residents or the public at all. According to the Government Accountability Project investigator, Leslie Pace, the documents showed that FEMA knew health care was the number one issue. According to Pace, in the documents, FEMA expressed that, quote, the occurrence of a cancer cluster in East Palestine is not zero as a result of toxic smoke plumes. Pace said, quote, it was only discussed internally and it actually was discussed all the way up to the White House, end quote, which suggests that President Biden and staff were aware of possible health concerns during and after

the seven months leading up to the executive order that eventually directed FEMA to aid the community in the wake of the derailment. According to PACE, White House and National Security Council officials discussed the dangers of cancer and other health issues while simultaneously discussing whether or not to release that information in a report highlighting East Palestine's unmet needs. That unmet needs report was never released to the public or the media. Residents of East Palestine have called this alleged cover-up, quote, criminal negligence. Current DHS officials under the Trump administration have also condemned the cover-up with one DHS spokesperson saying, quote, emails of FEMA ignoring a potential cancer cluster breakout in East Palestine, Ohio,

under the Biden administration is yet another outrageous example of the gross mismanagement and poor treatment of Americans under the prior administration. Add this debacle to the long list of FEMA failures under Biden, ignoring sexual assault claims in Hawaii, a complete inadequate response to Hurricane Helene in western North Carolina, and spending hundreds of millions of dollars to house illegal aliens, this will never happen again under the leadership of President Trump and Secretary Noem." End quote. Meanwhile, on the other side of that claim, just last week, FEMA denied North Carolina's request for extended disaster relief funding at the level set by the Biden administration.

So traditionally, there's a cost-sharing model between FEMA and the states with a 75% federal absorption of costs to 25% for states, but that was changed under the Biden administration to ensure FEMA matched the costs 100%. That 100% cost match is what FEMA denied for North Carolina last week. FEMA also denied a similar request from Arkansas in March after the state was hit by severe storms and tornadoes. Now, as we know, the Trump administration is currently trying to figure out how to either fundamentally reform and overhaul FEMA or do away with FEMA entirely and hand over the issue of disaster relief to the states. Okay, let's move on to some other news from the weekend, which is that President Trump pulled his nomination for NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman.

Isaacman is a tech billionaire and private astronaut. He's best known as the founder and CEO of Shift4, which is a credit card processing company. He's also the founder of Draken International, which operates the world's largest private air force. Isaac Mann has also commanded several private space missions with SpaceX, including the Inspiration4 mission in 2021 and Polaris Dawn in 2024, during which he led the first private spacewalk. The role Isaac

Min was nominated for, NASA Administrator, oversees the United States' Civilian Space Program and Aeronautics Research. So the Administrator is in charge of setting strategic direction, managing budgets, and representing NASA's interests within the federal government as well as internationally. Isaac's nomination was seen as aligning with Trump's emphasis on public-private partnerships in space exploration given Isaacman's close ties with SpaceX and his experience in commercial spaceflight. However, as we know, on Saturday, just days before Isaacman's expected Senate confirmation, President Trump announced the withdrawal of his nomination. Trump wrote on Truth Social, quote,

after a thorough review of prior associations, I am hereby withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman to head NASA. I will soon announce a new nominee who will be mission aligned and put America first in space." End quote. Reports have suggested that Isaacman's past political donations to Democratic figures, including a super PAC aligned with Senator Chuck Schumer, may have raised concerns within the administration. Some are speculating that the withdrawal had more to do with Musk's departure

from the administration. After all, just one day before the withdrawal of Isaacman's nomination, Musk's tenure with the administration came to an end. They had a small goodbye ceremony in the Oval Office. What I can tell you is that we don't know for sure what led to the withdrawal other than that thorough review of prior associations that President Trump cited. We don't have any other details or information at this point. Following the withdrawal, Isaacman thanked President Trump cited. We don't have any other details or information at this point. Following the withdrawal, Isaacman thanked President Trump and the Senate. He wrote in part, quote, I'm incredibly grateful to President Trump, the Senate and all those who supported me throughout this journey. The past six months have been enlightening and honestly a bit

thrilling. I have gained a much deeper appreciation for the complexities of government and the weight our political leaders carry. It may not always be obvious through the discourse and turbulence, but there are many competent, dedicated people who love this country and care deeply about the mission. That was on full display during my hearing where leaders on both sides of the aisle made clear that they're willing to fight

for the world's most accomplished space agency." End quote. Final story of the day, before we get into some quick hitters. On Sunday, eight people were injured after a man set a group of people on fire as they held a peaceful protest on behalf of the Israeli hostages being held by Hamas in Gaza. Police have taken into custody 45-year-old Mohammed Sabri Salomon, an Egyptian national, who reportedly came into the country on August 27, 2022, through LAX Airport on a B1-B2 non-immigrant visa,

but has since overstayed that visa. He was originally authorized to stay in the United States through February 26, 2023, but he was granted work authorization in March 2023, which allowed him to stay through March 28 of this year. Since then, he has been in the country illegally. So here's how the attack unfolded. Around 1.26 p.m. local time, Boulder police were called to the county courthouse for reports of a man who had a weapon and was setting people on fire. The attack took place near an event put on

by a grassroots group that organizes run and walk events calling for the release of Israeli hostages. The group is called Run for Their Lives. The organization says it's been holding events every week since October 15th, 2023, without any violent incidents until yesterday. The suspect used a flamethrower and molotov cocktails to set the group on fire. He was reportedly heard saying, free Palestine, and how many children have you killed, and we have to end Zionists, they are killers. According to witnesses, several people suffering from burns were

writhing on the ground while others were running to get water. Eight victims between the ages of 52 and 88 were all hospitalized with burns. Those six of the eight victims have since been released from the hospital to remain in critical condition, but they are expected to survive. The FBI has said that the incident was a quote, targeted terror attack, end quote, but no motive has officially been identified at this point. FBI Director Cash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino responded to the incident on social media and announced that FBI agents were at the scene. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard responded to the incident in a social media post of her own that read, quote, The National Counterterrorism Center is working with the FBI and local law enforcement on the ground investigating the targeted terror attack against a weekly meeting of Jewish community members who had just gathered in Boulder, Colorado to raise awareness

of the hostages kidnapped during Hamas's attack on Israel on October 7th. Thank you to the first responders and local authorities for your quick response and action." Meanwhile, in a press conference held about two hours after the incident, Boulder Chief of Police Stephen Redfern said it was too early to accept the FBI's designation of the incident as a targeted terror attack. And as of 12pm today, the police chief has not updated his stance on this designation. He did speak at a second press briefing last night, but focused on the events and did not mention terrorism at all. Solomon is currently being held at the Boulder County Jail with a $10 million bond. Notably, he's been charged with first-degree murder, but it's unclear whether there's been any fatalities. The latest update from police

was that no one died, so we don't know if that has since changed or if it was a mistake in the charges. It's looking more like it was a mistake in the charges. Solomon is also being charged with a federal hate crime as well. According to court documents, he researched on YouTube how to make Molotov cocktails, purchased the ingredients to do so and constructed them. The documents also said that he allegedly told police he wanted to kill all Zionist people, wished they were all dead, that he would do it again,

and that he needed to stop Zionists from taking over quote unquote our land, which he explained to be Palestine. Solomon also said that he planned Sunday's attack for one year but waited for his daughter to graduate to carry it out. So that is what we know there. I'm sure more will develop in the coming days. Now for just a few quick hitters, a bipartisan bill was introduced in the Senate last week called the Supporting Healthy Moms and Babies Act.

The bill would require private insurance companies to fully cover all childbirth-related expenses without any copays or deductibles. As described in the bill, childbirth-related expenses would include comprehensive prenatal, labor and delivery, neonatal, perinatal, and postpartum care and screenings. Medicaid, which insures about 41% of American births, already covers these expenses, but private insurers do not. The bill is still very much in the early stages and still has to pass the Senate before it can even be sent to the House. I reported last week that NPR had sued the administration over its efforts to cut federal

funding for both NPR and PBS, but the latest update is that PBS has now also filed suit. Similar to NPR's lawsuit, PBS has accused the administration of unlawfully interfering in the operations of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, violating the First Amendment, and violating federal law. The lawsuit was filed by PBS as well as a PBS member station in northern Minnesota. And the Supreme Court declined to hear a few cases today, one being a challenge to a state ban on semi-automatic rifles in Maryland. The justices decision to not hear the case means the appellate court's ruling, which upheld the ban, remains intact. The Supreme Court also rejected a case challenging Rhode Island's ban on large capacity

magazines, and the court's decision not to hear the case also leaves Rhode Island's ban in place. Speaking of the Supreme Court though I do want to give you a heads up that this month is when things start to get a little intense. The justice says they save all of their controversial decisions for last and they're about to go on summer break so starting this week we should start to see some of the more highly anticipated, you know, the more talked about decisions get released. So far this week, they only have one opinion day scheduled, but they'll probably start to implement more opinion days starting next week. So, you know, just so they have more time to get their decisions out.

If you're not familiar with how they do it, basically they'll tell us ahead of time when their opinion days are going to be and opinions are released at 10 a.m. Eastern time on those days. Scotusblog.com, by the way, is a really good way to keep up with the opinion releases. They even do a live chat on opinion days where everyone kind of talks to each other and shares their thoughts, which can be fun, but they also do a really good job at explaining the court's decisions. So that's SCOTUSblog.com, S-C-O-T-U-S, as in Supreme Court of the United States, blog.com. Now the exception to scheduled opinion days is the emergency docket. So the emergency docket consists of cases that require immediate action from the justices. Unlike the merits docket, cases that are on the emergency docket

are handled on an expedited basis with very limited briefing and typically no oral arguments. With those cases, the decisions can come out at any time. They're not scheduled. We could get them midnight on a Friday, 1 p.m. on a Tuesday, 5 a.m. on a Wednesday. You just really never know.

So stay tuned because I will of course be covering those bigger decisions as we get them, which like I said, could be as soon as this Thursday, but really like the one, you know, when Roe versus Wade was overturned, that was the last opinion day. And that's usually depending on the term towards the end of June, early July. but yeah, stay tuned because those will start to come soon. So that is what I have for you today. As a reminder, a new newsletter is going out tomorrow morning, so make sure you're subscribed to my sub stack. If you're not already, you can always find the link in each episode description. Thank you so much for being here. As always, have a great next couple of days and I will talk to you on Thursday.