UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (6/26/25): What To Know About NYC Mayoral Candidate Zohran Mamdani, an Update in the Middle East, Senate's Federal Land Sale Blocked, and More.

Episode Date: June 26, 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: DOJ Whistleblower Says Top U.S. Attorney and Judicial Nominee Told DOJ to "Ignore Court Orders" (1:00) Health Insurers Reach Agreement With HHS To Make Reforms to Pre-Authorization Requests (4:30) Trump Administration Formally Finds California in Violation of Title IX; Here's What It Means (10:49) Zohran Mamdani Beats Former Gov. Cuomo in NYC Mayoral Primary; What to Know About Him and His Policies (14:47) Senate's Federal Land Sale Blocked From Big Beautiful Bill (32:00) Updates in the Middle East; Trump and Hegseth Deny New U.S. Intelligence Report About Nuclear Site Damage (35:02) Rumor Has It: Was a Tourist Denied Entry Into the U.S. Because of a JD Vance Meme? (42:39) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, June 26th. Let's talk about some news. Before we do, this is your episodic reminder that I do have a new edition of my newsletter going out tomorrow morning at 6am Eastern time. So those newsletters always go out the day after each episode is released. And the newsletters are a little bit different

So rather than just focusing on politics, they actually feature the top headlines across pretty much all genres of news business Pop culture politics health and international news very informative, but also because it's just the headlines. It's not overwhelming It's really the perfect amount of news So you can subscribe by clicking the link in the show notes of this episode or by going to substack.com or the substack app and then searching for unbiased society, which is the name of the newsletter, of course. Now, without further ado, let's get into today's stories. A former DOJ lawyer has come forward with allegations against Emile Beauvé, the current principal associate deputy attorney general of the United States and former personal attorney

for President Trump. According to whistleblower Erez Rouveni, Bové told DOJ lawyers during a meeting that they should ignore court orders that interfered with deportations. To give you a little bit of additional context before we get into the actual allegations, Rouveni was working as an attorney for a DOJ and was actually the attorney that was defending the DOJ in the Kilmar-Abrego-Garcia deportation case.

So Rouveni was the one that told the judge in Abrego-Garcia's case that the government had mistakenly deported Abrego-Gar Garcia. And at one point in that same hearing, Rouveni was asked by the judge under what authority law enforcement detained a Brago Garcia. And his response was quote, your honor, my answer to a lot of these questions is going to be frustrating. And I'm also frustrated that I have no answers for you on a lot of these questions and quote. So frustrated that I have no answers for you on a lot of these questions."

End quote. So following that hearing, Rouveni and Rouveni's supervisor were actually placed on indefinite paid leave and then fired less than a week later. When Rouveni was fired, Attorney General Bondi said that every DOJ attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States,

and any attorney who fails to abide byously advocate on behalf of the United States, and any attorney who fails to abide by that direction will face consequences. So that's some added context for you. Rouveni's whistleblower complaint, which is what we're talking about now in this story, came after he was fired from the DOJ. The complaint alleges that Beauvais and other top DOJ officials strategized as to how they could mislead the courts regarding the administration's deportation enforcement efforts and potentially ignore judges' rulings. At a meeting on March 14th, the whistleblower complaint alleges that Bove said the DOJ should

consider saying fuck you to the courts and quote, ignore any such court order. End quote. According to Rouveni's lawyers, Rouveni was, quote, stunned by Beauvais' statement because to Mr. Rouveni's knowledge, no one in DOJ leadership in any administration had ever suggested the Department of Justice could blatantly ignore court orders. End quote. Meanwhile, in a statement to The New York Times, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche responded to the allegations against Boves, describing Rouveni as a disgruntled former employee and called the accusations utterly false.

Blanche said that he was at the meeting, described in the complaint, and at no time did anyone suggest that a court order should not be followed. Now, the reason that this whistleblower complaint is getting extra attention right now is because Bove was nominated by the president to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which is a lifetime appointment. Bove sat before the Senate yesterday as part of his judicial confirmation process, and he was actually questioned about the whistleblower's allegations. At that hearing, Bove denied the allegation that he gave federal prosecutors instructions to ignore court rulings, and he said, quote, I have never advised a Department of Justice attorney

to violate a court order, end quote. He further said that the whistleblower claims are false and misleading, and concluded with, quote, I don't think there's any validity to the suggestion that the whistleblower complaint filed yesterday calls into question my qualifications to serve as a circuit judge." Moving on, HHS Secretary Kennedy and Dr. Oz announced a voluntary agreement made with

major insurance companies to reform pre-authorization practices. For a bit of context here, pre-authorization is when a medical service or treatment or prescription has to be approved by your insurance company before It can be administered right so they they basically have to pre-approve you in order to cover it So as an example, let's say your doctor recommends that you get an MRI and MRI is expensive So, of course you want that covered by your insurance. But oftentimes a non-emergent MRI is listed as a treatment that needs pre-approval by insurance for it to be covered. So your doctor will reach out to the insurance company and make a case for why you need that MRI, and then the insurance company will either approve or deny that course of treatment. This process allows insurance companies to

review the medical service requested to make sure that it's necessary for a patient's care. Because as we know, insurance companies just don't wanna spend more than they have to. So typically the doctor is responsible for obtaining this pre-authorization. And when they submit a request to the insurance company, they have to explain why that service is needed.

And sometimes they even have to take additional steps, like telling the insurance company. They have to explain why that service is needed and sometimes they even have to take additional steps like telling the insurance company what other treatments or things they've tried to address the issue before actually submitting the request to the insurance company. Needless to say, these pre-authorizations are time consuming and they can result in delays when patients actually really need care. So on Monday, Secretary Kennedy and Dr. Oz met with health insurers who pledged to make six major reforms as to how pre-authorizations are handled. In total, more than 50 health insurers agreed to the pledge, but some of the big insurers included UnitedHealthcare, Aetna, Cigna Group, Humana, Blue Cross Blue Shield, as well as Kaiser Permanente.

The pledge will cover 75% of US patients and also extends beyond just commercial coverage and includes Medicare Advantage and Medicaid. Like I said, the pledge includes six reforms in total, so let's briefly walk through each of those. The first reform is standardizing electronic prior authorization, which is a commitment to developing let's briefly walk through each of those. The first reform is standardizing electronic prior authorization, which is a commitment

to developing electronic standardized data and submission requirements. Currently more than 50% of pre-authorizations are done via paper and fax. So developing electronic standardized requirements should result in a more straightforward process with faster turnaround times. Their goal is to have that new system operational and available by January 1, 2027. The second reform is reducing the procedures

needing a pre-authorization. So currently not all medical procedures require pre-authorization, but this is a pledge to reduce the number that do. Under the pledge insurers will need to demonstrate reductions by January 1st of 2026, so this upcoming January. The third reform is honoring existing authorizations. This means that if a patient changes insurance companies during a course of treatment, the new plan that they switch to will honor the existing prior authorizations. And that commitment is also scheduled to go into place on January 1st, 2026.

The fourth reform is enhancing communication and transparency, which is essentially directed at making pre-authorization requirements easier to understand. So insurers will provide clear and easy to understand explanations of what goes into determining whether a patient is eligible for a treatment, and they'll also start to include support for appeals and next steps

if a treatment is denied. And that's also scheduled to be implemented by January 1st, 2026. The fifth reform is expanding real-time responses, which really focuses on minimizing delays. So by 2027, at least 80% of prior authorization approvals when submitted with required documentation will be answered in real time. And then finally, the sixth reform is ensuring only medical professionals review denials. In other words, health insurers are pledging that all denials will continue to be reviewed by medical professionals. So if your doctor calls to challenge a denial,

they'll talk to another medical professional, not a non-medical staffer. This is already the standard. So this pledge seems to kind of just be more of a reaffirmation of the standard. Now, I'm sure a lot of you listening are thinking, okay, this sounds great, but will it actually happen? Well, first, I wanna be clear

that this is not a mandate or a law, right? So these companies are not legally required to comply. They've technically just volunteered to make these changes. But overall, it seems like the changes would have benefits for doctors, patients, and insurers, specifically when it comes to lowering the costs associated with each pre-authorization,

meaning the documentation for each pre-authorization. But beyond noting the cost-related benefit, Dr. Oz in announcing these reforms also did say that the administration has made clear that it is not going to tolerate these pre-authorization hurdles anymore, so either the insurance companies fix it or the administration is going to fix it,

seemingly implying that there would be federal rules put into place if insurance companies fail to comply. It's also worth noting that attempts to change the pre-authorization process are not new. So who's to say we'll actually see the reforms this time around? Only time will tell. In 2018, during Trump's first administration, insurance companies made a similar pledge, but didn't necessarily follow through on those pledges. When announcing the pledge this time around, Dr. Oz was asked what would make this time different. He basically just said that things have changed. Over the past couple of years,

we've also seen several insurers announce their own plans to scale back on prior authorization requirements. Last year, the Biden administration issued new federal rules requiring insurers to provide coverage decisions on urgent treatment requests within 72 hours. That was specifically for patients enrolled in either Medicare Advantage, Medicaid, or Affordable Care Act plans. But my point here is just to illustrate that this is a widely recognized issue that has seen bipartisan attempts to fix it, but really only time will tell if the insurance companies actually follow through. In some other news, the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights has formally determined

that the California Department of Education and the California Interscholastic Federation violated Title IX by permitting male athletes, including transgender females, to compete in girls' sports and access female-only facilities. The OCR's investigation was prompted by the California's Interscholastic Federation's earlier announcement, which was made in February, that it would follow California state law,

which allows participation based on gender identity. In February, around the same time as the CIF's announcement, Trump had signed that executive order that banned biological males from competing in women's sports and said that participation in sports for purposes of Title IX is to be based on sex, not gender identity. Since then, California allowed A.B. Hernandez, a trans track and field athlete, to compete in the All Girls Track and Field Championship. And going into that meet, the California Interscholastic Federation changed its rules. So one change was a new entry process that allows an additional female

athlete to compete in each event that a transgender athlete was competing in. Another rule allows for the sharing of medals. So if a transgender athlete places in a girls event, the athlete who finishes just behind will also receive the same place and medal. Ultimately, Hernandez shared the first place medal with two other winners in the high jump, shared the second place medal with another athlete in the long jump, and shared the first place medal with another athlete in the triple jump. So that was the situation that was going on in the background as the OCR was investigating California. Now what does the OCR's finding mean? Well the OCR issued this proposed resolution agreement

which details required corrective actions that California has to take. So this includes notifying all federally funded athletic programs to enforce biology-based definitions, rescinding state guidance that allowed male participation in girls sports, restoring titles, records, and awards

to affected female athletes, sending personalized apologies, and awards to affected female athletes, sending personalized apologies, and mandating annual compliance certification by the California Department of Education, the California Interscholastic Federation, and their recipients. Per the terms of the agreement, these entities must implement a formal monitoring plan and comply with the terms of the agreement within 10 days. If they don't, they face possible enforcement by the DOJ, including the potential loss of federal funding. Education Secretary Linda

McMahon said the decision is meant to protect girls from unfair competition, unsafe conditions, and emotional distress when competing against biological males. California officials, however, strongly reject the administration's position. Governor Newsom criticized the federal mandate as, quote, dramatic, fake, and divorced from reality, end quote, and the California Attorney General has already filed a federal lawsuit arguing that the federal directives violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and threaten the mental health of transgender youth. Interestingly, Newsom, despite his remarks in light of these federal

directives, he said in a recent podcast with Charlie Kirk that the issue of fairness when it comes to transgender athletes in women's sports is, quote, completely legit. He also said he, quote, completely aligns with Charlie Kirk and agrees that the issue is an 80-20 issue. That podcast episode was really interesting, by the way. Charlie Kirk was a guest on Gavin Newsom's podcast back in March. They talked about a whole host of issues. I highly recommend listening if you haven't already. It just kind of showcases civilized debate

and I love stuff like that. So again, highly recommend if you haven't listened already. Okay, let's take our first break here. When I come back, we will talk about the New York City mayoral candidate, Zoran Mamdani. Welcome back. This next story was highly requested. Zoran Mamdani won the New York City mayoral primary election Tuesday night beating former New York governor Andrew Cuomo. Now, before I answer some of your questions about Mamdani, I want to be clear that this was a primary election. Primary elections are held to determine which candidates will run in an upcoming

general election. So Democrats run against other Democrats, Republicans run against other Republicans, etc. The winners of each political party in the primaries go on to run against each other in the general election. So what we just saw happen in New York City is registered Democratic voters voted between Governor Andrew Cuomo, Zoran Mamdani, and a couple of other Democratic candidates and Mamdani won. The Republican candidate Curtis Silwaw, he ran unopposed meaning no other candidates ran against him so he will run as the Republican candidate in the upcoming general election on November 4th of this year and then of course the current New York City mayor, Eric Adams, who was a Democrat until

recently will be running in the general election as an independent. Now typically I would not cover mayoral election results, but this one and this candidate in particular has a lot of people interested in asking questions. There's a few reasons for this. So New York City has not had a Republican mayor win a mayoral election in 20 years. New York City has had a Democratic mayor for the last 12 years.

So Mom Donnie has a solid chance of winning the upcoming election. And that's why so many people are interested in this, not to mention Mom Donnie would be the first mayor affiliated with a Democratic socialist political organization. And to be a little more clear on that, he is running as a Democrat, but he is a member of a democratic social political organization. He's also called himself a democratic socialist,

but we'll touch more on that in a minute. First, let's talk about who he is, and then we'll get to the specific questions that some of you submitted on Instagram. Momdani is a 33 year old Muslim American born in Uganda. He moved to New York when he was seven years old. He graduated from the Bronx High School of Science and earned a BA in Africana Studies from Bowdoin College. At Bowdoin College, he co-founded a Students for Justice in Palestine chapter. He then got his start in New York City politics as a volunteer for a politician's campaign in a 2015 special election. In 2017, he joined Democratic Socialists of America

and worked for the campaign of a New York City council candidate who was a Palestinian Lutheran minister and a Democratic Socialist from Brooklyn. Mamdani served as the campaign manager for another politician's 2018 bid for the New York State Senate and was also a field organizer for a Democratic Socialist 2019 campaign for a Queens County District Attorney position. In 2020, Mom Donnie himself was elected as a Democrat into the New York State Assembly,

which is the state level equivalent of the US House of Representatives, and that is where he is today. Now to get into some of the questions that you asked, there's a few questions we have to dive into, but two of the most asked questions that I received were related, and that was what are his views on Israel and Gaza and why do people call him an anti-Semite? So what I'll say is that Mamdani is a vocal critic of the Israeli government and its treatment of Palestinians, but he has denied that he's an anti-Semite. So on one hand, he has said that if Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu came to New York City and he was serving as mayor, he would

arrest Netanyahu for his handling of the war between Israel and Gaza and the alleged war crimes that Netanyahu has committed. Another recent comment that received a lot of attention was his defense of the phrase, globalize the Intifada. On a crossover podcast episode with the New York Times Daily Pod and the Bulwark podcast, Mamdani was asked whether the phrases globalize the Intifada or from the river to the sea make him uncomfortable. Now, Mamdani's response did not touch on the phrase from the river to the sea, but he did discuss the globalized intifada phrase and he said, quote, I know people for whom

those things mean very different things. And to me, ultimately, what I hear in so many is a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights. And I think what's difficult also is that the very word, referring to Antifa, has been used by the Holocaust Museum when translating the Warsaw ghetto uprising into Arabic, because it's a word that means struggle.

And as a Muslim man who grew up post 9-11, I'm all too familiar with the way in which Arabic words can be twisted, can be distorted, and can be used to justify any kind of meaning. And I think that's where it leaves me with a sense that what we need to do is focus on keeping Jewish New Yorkers safe, and the question of the permissibility of language

is something that I haven't ventured into." End quote. So if we were to paraphrase that, he's basically saying that what he believes is that these phrases imply a desire for equality for the Palestinian people, but he understands that Jewish people see those phrases as having an entirely different meaning. And to touch on that just briefly, Palestinians often say when it comes to the word Intifada, that liberation is the goal, right? It's a sign of resistance against the Israeli occupation. Israelis and Jews, though, see the phrase globalize the Intifada as a call for their death because in the past Intifadas have been violent uprisings against them. So without getting too into the weeds

about that, I'll just say that Palestinians and Gazans and Israelis and Jews have very different interpretations of these phrases. Outside of Mamdani's remarks about the intifada though, his stance on Israel and Palestine can also be seen through past political moves. As an assemblyman in 2023, he introduced a bill to end tax-exempt status for New York charities whose funds are specifically used to support Israel's military and settlement activity. He argued that it was an effort to prevent tax-exempt donations from subsidizing violence by Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Ultimately, that bill didn't end up going anywhere because it was widely criticized

by other lawmakers. In 2025, Mamdani declined to sign on to the annual New York Assembly Resolution celebrating the anniversary of Israel's founding because it contained the wording that Israel, quote, continues to strive for peace with security and dignity for itself, its neighbors, and throughout the world in order to fulfill the prophecy of becoming a light unto the nations. End quote. Mamdani's spokesperson said this language was, quote, belied by the conduct of the right-wing Israeli government over the last 18 months.

End quote. Mamdani has said that he abhorred anti-Semitism and acknowledged Israel's right to exist, but has not said whether he believes it has a right to exist as a Jewish state, saying instead that Israel, quote, has a right to exist as a state with equal rights for all its citizens, end quote. Mamdani was similarly criticized for not co-sponsoring the assembly's annual resolution for Holocaust Remembrance Day between 2022 and 2025, to which his campaign responded that he

had voted for the resolutions, he just didn't co-sponsor them. And his campaign also cited two previous social media posts from those years where he acknowledged the day. Mom Donnie also recently made a statement refuting claims that he's anti-Semitic. He was asked by a reporter why he hasn't had a more visceral reaction to being called an anti-Semite. And his response was in part, quote, I've said at every opportunity that there is no room for anti-semitism in this city, in this country. I've said that because that is something I personally believe and ultimately to your question of why not a more visceral reaction, part of it has been colored by the fact that when I speak, especially when I speak with emotion, I am then characterized by those same rivals as being

a monster. End quote. He went on to say that it pains him to be called an anti-Semite, to be painted as if he's in opposition to the very Jewish New Yorkers that he knows and loves and that are such a key part of the city. Now the next set, so those are his views on Israel and Gaza and the claims that he's an anti-Semite, the next set of most frequently submitted questions dealt with whether he is a socialist and what that even means. Mamdani is a democratic socialist and we know this because he's a member of the New York chapter of the Democratic Socialist, but more so because he calls himself one on his own website. Now,

socialism is an economic and political system where the people, often through the government, have a greater degree of social ownership and control over the economy. Put simply, a socialist government strives for more control over means of production like factories, land, and resources, rather than private individuals or corporations having control of those things. And that's, like I said, put simply, there's a lot more than that that goes into it. Socialism's goal is to reduce inequality

and prioritize social welfare over competition. And this is the opposite of what we see in the United States as capitalistic society, right? In the United States, profit and competition are the economic drivers over social welfare and equality, and key industries are owned by businesses and individuals rather than the government. But the US does also have some socialist elements, right?

These are things like social security, public schools, Medicare, et cetera. Almost all countries blend capitalism with socialism, but some have more elements of capitalism, whereas others have more elements of socialism. Now, a democratic socialist, which is what Mamdani is, is one type of socialist. There are Marxist socialists, revolutionary socialists, utopian socialists, democratic socialists, many different branches of socialism. Democratic socialism combines socialist

economic principles, so things like universal healthcare, public education, strong social safety nets, with democratic political systems, elected governments, civil liberties, freedom of speech, multi-party elections, etc. Democratic socialism doesn't call for abolishing capitalism entirely like Marxist socialism does, but democratic socialism does want to heavily regulate capitalism to make it more fair and equal. So with democratic socialism, markets exist, but not like they do with capitalism. And then core services like health care, education, housing, etc. are publicly funded or publicly controlled.

There's a focus with democratic socialism on economic fairness, workers' rights, and reigning in corporate power. So in short, democratic socialism is not as far left as the more pure forms of socialism, but it's also not as right as democrats. So if you envision a political spectrum, I'll go from left to right telling you the most left political parties to the most right political parties. All the way to the left you have your pure forms of socialism. This is Marxist socialism, revolutionary socialism, utopian socialism, etc. Then to the right of that you have democratic socialism, which is what Mom Donnie is, then Democrats to the right of that,

then moderates, then Republicans, and then alt-right. So democratic socialism isn't all the way to the left, but it's more left than Democrats. Now that we've talked a little bit about socialism and democratic socialism, I wanna take a closer look at some of his policies to better understand his agenda and how democratic socialism understand his agenda and

how democratic socialism shapes his agenda. Mamdani has said that he wants to freeze rent for nearly one million New Yorkers living in rent stabilized apartments, which are apartments where the amount that a landlord can increase rent each year is limited by law. These apartments are more popular in New York City than anywhere else in the country. Mamdani has also said he wants to provide free city bus services, offer universal child care for children aged six weeks to five years, establish city subsidized grocery stores, and establish a Department of Community Safety which would invest in mental health services and gun violence prevention. And that last one, the Department of Community Safety which would invest in mental health services and gun violence prevention.

And that last one, the Department of Community Safety, is part of his idea to limit crime and violence before it happens through what he calls prevention-first community-based solutions. Now, he has said that all of these things will be funded by raising taxes on the city's wealthiest individuals and corporations. He said he would impose a 2% income tax on New York City residents who make more than a million dollars a year and increase the corporate tax from what it is currently, which is between 7.25 and 8.85%, up to 11.5%, which would be the same corporate tax rate as New

Jersey. But keep in mind that Mamdani wouldn't have the power to raise taxes on his own. Taxes can only be modified by state lawmakers with approval from the state's governor. And New York's governor has already said she does not support raising taxes. When she was asked whether she supports this proposal of raising taxes, she said, quote, no, I'm not raising taxes at a time where affordability is the biggest issue. I don't want to lose any more people to Palm Beach. We've lost enough. End quote. So there's really not much Momdani can do on the taxes front by himself. To bring in additional funding for his

plans outside of taxes, his campaign has called for hiring more tax auditors, collecting fines from landlords, and reforms to procurement and contracting processes, and he expects that these changes could raise about $1 billion in revenue. His campaign also proposes a new minimum wage law that would raise the minimum wage for jobs in the city to $30 an hour by 2030, which would then be automatically increased based on changes in the cost of living. So to sum this up, Mamdani is considered a democratic socialist by himself and by others because his policies emphasize affordability and equality for the working class, while simultaneously increasing taxes and prices for corporations and the wealthy.

A couple more questions from you guys. One was, is socialism a bad thing? Has it ever worked in the people's favor and can it work for America? Well, it's important to point out that, first of all, these are not yes or no questions that I can answer, but also typically, when you hear criticism about socialism, it's coming from the opposite political party, right?

Conservative opponents tend to criticize socialism in the context of authoritarian systems like the Soviet Union or Cuba's regime, both of which are more like Marxist socialism or revolutionary socialism, which is more left than democratic socialism. But democratic socialists actually compare themselves more so to modern day European governments like France, Portugal, Spain,

Scandinavian countries. However, it's also not just conservatives that criticize socialists, right? Some Democrats do too and that's because some Democrats see socialism as being too liberal and unrealistic. Now whether socialism can or can't work in America, that's a matter of political debate. America has voted into office self-described democratic socialists before. It's not common, but it's happened. These are people like Bernie Sanders and AOC. I, of course, again can't definitively say whether socialism is a good or a bad thing. Some people think it's good, other people think it's bad.

That's why it's such a debate. Last question I will answer before we have to move on to the next story is how much power does a mayor have to realistically implement big policy changes like rent freeze, universal child care, government-run grocery stores, etc.? Well, like I said, the taxes thing, for instance, is bigger than the mayor. He doesn't have much control over that. So without increasing taxes, who knows how many of his policies he'd actually be able to put in place, right? But the role of the mayor is similar to the role of a governor at the state level, but a mayor is just on the city level, of course. So the mayor is the one that signs local laws. Local laws get proposed by council members,

they go through the local law process, and then they're ultimately sent to the mayor for signature if they pass the council. And similar to a governor or the president, the mayor is the one that signs or vetoes these local laws. Or the mayor can also propose legislation by filing a bill with the speaker's office but it also has to pass the council. So to the extent to which a mayor can impose their agenda, it really depends on the extent to which they're able to cooperate with the city council. Historically, the mayor and the city council have sometimes been at odds, so it really just depends on how well they can cooperate with one another

and how much they want to support one another's agenda. Okay, that's what I'll say about Mom Donnie, but remember this was just a primary election, so now he'll go on to run against at least three other candidates, current mayor Eric Adams and Jim Walden, who are both running as independents, and Curtis Silbaugh, who is running as a Republican. Let's take our final break here. When I come back, we'll talk about this federal land sale proposal, what's going on with that, as well as what's going on

in the Middle East. Shop with Rakuten and you'll get it. What's it? It's the best deal, the highest cashback, the most savings on your shopping. So join Rakuten and start getting cashback at Sephora, Uniqlo, Expedia, and other stores you love. You can even stack sales on top of cashback. Just start your shopping with Rakuten to save money at over 750 stores. Join for free at Rakuten.ca or download the Rakuten app. That's R-A-K-U-T-E-N, rakuten.ca. Welcome back. This next story was another highly requested story. So within the last week or two,

a ton of you have been asking about the Senate proposal to sell off millions of acres of federal land. And I actually addressed it in my June 19th episode, which if I have my dates right, was a week from today, so a week ago. And in that episode, I explained what exactly the proposal consisted of, because there's a ton of misinformation out there.

But I also said that there was a good chance the proposal would not make it into the Big Beautiful Bill because of something called the Byrd Rule. And we now know that that is exactly what happened. So the Bird Rule is a special rule in the Senate that prohibits a budget reconciliation bill from including extraneous provisions. In other words, budget reconciliation bills, which is what the big beautiful bill is, can only include provisions related to the budget and provisions that accomplish the goals of budget resolution. Now, a bird bath is

the name that is given to the process that is used to determine whether parts of a bill violate the bird rule. And the person that presides over the bird bath is called the Senate Parliamentarian. The Senate Parliamentarian is a nonpartisan advisor to the chamber on procedural issues, legislative activity, and they also interpret Senate rules. During the birdbath, Senate staff review each section of the bill. The committee staff then makes arguments over whether each provision passes the bird rule, and then provisions that fail are taken out of the bill before it reaches the Senate floor for a vote. So the proposal to sell off public land was removed through this birdbath process.

The Senate parliamentarian determined that the proposal was an extraneous provision and it was removed. Senate Energy Chairman Mike Lee, who introduced this land sell-off proposal, said on Monday that he plans on introducing a revised version of the proposal. He said, quote, housing prices are crushing families and keeping young Americans from living where they grew up. We need to change that. Thanks to you, the American people, here's what I plan to do. One, remove all forest service land. We are not

selling off our forests. Two, significantly reduce the amount of BLM land in the bill. Only land within five miles of population centers is eligible. BLM, by the way, is Bureau of Land Management. Three, establish freedom zones to ensure these lands benefit American families. Four, protect our farmers, ranchers, and recreational users. They come first. And he says, yes, the Byrd rule limits what can go in the reconciliation bill,

but I'm doing everything I can to support President Trump and move this forward. Stay tuned, we're just getting started. End quote. So we'll see what happens here, but if you want some more context or you wanna learn about why this land sell-off is being proposed in the first place and the arguments on both sides

of the issue, go ahead and tune into my June 19th episode. Okay. Final story before we get into rumor has it, and yes, I am skipping quick hitters today, but final story before we get into rumor has it. What I want to do here is talk about what's going on in the Middle East since Monday's episode. Basically, I recorded Monday's episode and then by the time I got it edited and up, President Trump announced a ceasefire between Iran and Israel. Now, we know that that ceasefire was broken within hours, but a lot has taken place since Monday's episode, so let's just cover everything in chronological order. President Trump had initially announced that ceasefire at 6 o' 8 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday. The announcement, which he posted on his

Truth Social account, said the ceasefire would end the war within 24 hours once Iran and Israel wound down and completed their in-progress final missions. The actual Truth Social post read, quote, Congratulations to everyone. It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Social Post, read, quote, will start the ceasefire and upon the 12th hour Israel will start the ceasefire and upon the 24th hour an official end to the 12-day war will be saluted by the world. During each ceasefire the other side will remain peaceful and respectful. On the assumption that everything works as it should, which it will, I would like to congratulate both countries, Israel and Iran, on having the stamina, courage, and intelligence to end what should be called the 12-day war.

This is a war that could have gone on for years and destroyed the entire Middle East, but it didn't and never will. God bless Israel, God bless Iran, God bless the Middle East, God bless the United States of America, and God bless the world." End quote.

Hours after that announcement though, around 3.30 in the morning Eastern time on Tuesday, Israel reported that it had intercepted missiles from Iran. Iran denied launching any missiles and alleged that it was Israel that was the one that had violated the ceasefire. Israel said soon after that, that its air force had destroyed a radar installation near Tehran, seemingly acknowledging its alleged violations. President Trump also seemed to put the blame on Israel for the violation. He said, quote,

Israel, as soon as we made the deal, they came out and dropped a boatload of bombs, the likes of which I've never seen before. The biggest load that we've seen, I'm not happy with Israel. When I say, now you have 12 hours, you don't go out in the first hour and just drop everything you have on them.

So I'm not happy with them. I'm not happy with Iran either. End quote. He also said, and this is the line receiving the most amount of attention, quote, we basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard, they don't know what the fuck they're doing.

Do you understand that? End quote. Following that remark, he immediately walked away from reporters and onto Marine One. Soon after that, Trump wrote on True Social in all caps, quote, Israel, do not drop those bombs.

If you do it as a major violation, bring your pilots home now, end quote. According to multiple sources, Trump reportedly then spoke to Netanyahu and wrote in another post, quote, Israel is not going to attack Iran. All planes will turn around and head home while doing a friendly plane wave to Iran. Nobody will be hurt. Ceasefire is in effect." End quote. Notably, despite his remarks that seemed to criticize Israel more than Iran, he also did tell reporters that he thought both sides violated the ceasefire agreement.

As of today, though, the ceasefire seems to be holding, and the United States is actually scheduled to meet with Iran next week, if all goes well, that is according to the president. The Senate held an all Senate classified briefing on the strikes today at 2 p.m. and the House is set to have a briefing on Friday. However, the White House did say that the information presented to Congress would be limited following the intelligence leak that happened earlier this week because the administration believes the intelligence leak happened after the assessment was posted to CapNet which is a system used for sharing classified intelligence with Congress and that actually leads us right into the discussion about the

intelligence assessment. So on Tuesday we learned about an initial US intelligence assessment which reportedly said that the strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities did not completely destroy its nuclear program and likely only set the nuclear program back by months. Prior to this, President Trump had said that Iran's nuclear program had been obliterated. Now, this initial assessment was produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency, or DIA, which is the Pentagon's intelligence arm. We have 17 different intelligence agencies in the federal government. But what the DIA's assessment says is that the three nuclear sites, Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, had suffered moderate to severe damage and that Natanz was damaged the most. Remember that Fordow is the one that's buried deep underground and required those special bunker buster bombs.

That's the one that they were really trying to take out. The DIA's assessment also reportedly says that the strikes sealed off the entrances to two of the facilities but did not collapse the underground buildings. It further says that Iran's enriched uranium stockpile was not destroyed, that the enriched uranium was moved out of the sites prior to the US strikes, and that these centrifuges are mostly still intact. Remember, centrifuges are those devices that are critical for the uranium enrichment process, but as you'll hear in a minute, the IAEA, which is the International Atomic Energy Agency, came to an entirely different conclusion about the centrifuges, so we don't really fully

know what's going on. Following the reports of the intelligence assessment, President Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth maintained that these sites were obliterated. Hegseth described the DIA's assessment as preliminary and low confidence and pointed to the report's findings that the sites had suffered somewhere between moderate and severe damage. So he said that he believes the damage is definitely closer to severe than moderate. And he reused that word obliterated. In a Pentagon briefing this morning, a top US military official said the operation

went as planned, but that briefing did not offer any additional intelligence. Now, the Trump administration is not the only party giving us information that conflicts with the DIA's intelligence assessment, okay? The Israel Atomic Energy Commission released a statement this week that said their assessment shows that their strikes, combined with American strikes, has set Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons back by many years. The IAEA also said that the strikes have severely damaged Iran's nuclear sites and rendered the Fordow centrifuges, quote, no longer operational, end quote.

An Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson said in an interview following the strikes that their nuclear sites were badly damaged. However, most recently, this morning, Iran's Supreme Leader made his first public remarks since the strikes, and he said in part that the US strikes on Iran's nuclear sites quote did nothing significant. He also said that Trump had exaggerated the impact of the attacks, that quote the US gained nothing from this war, that quote the Islamic Republic won and dealt a severe slap to the face of America, end quote.

So how much damage did the US actually do? Unfortunately, we have no idea. But we have to remember that it is still very, very early. And we're ultimately talking about one initial assessment from one of 17 intelligence agencies within our own federal government. So we'll know more as more assessments get released and I'll keep you updated as that happens. And finally it's time for Rumor Has It, my weekly segment where I address recent rumors submitted by all of you and I either confirm them, dispel them, and or add context. We're only doing one today and that is Rumor Has It that a tourist from Norway was denied entry to the United States due to a meme on the tourist phone seemingly making fun of Vice President Vance.

Unfortunately I can't confirm, I can't dispel this one either, this is a bit of a he said she said, we're just going to add some context. In an interview with a Norwegian newspaper, the tourist, 21-year-old Mads Mikkelsen, claimed that he was placed in a holding cell upon his arrival at Newark Airport in New Jersey and he was asked questions about drug trafficking, terrorist plots, and right wing extremism. He said Customs and Border Protection agents took him to a room with armed guards where he had to hand over his shoes, phone, and backpack and was threatened with a $5,000 fine if he didn't unlock his phone for the officers. He claims that this is when CBP officers saw a meme of Vice President

Vance as well as a picture of Mickelson holding a homemade wooden pipe. Mickelson says both pictures were automatically saved to his camera roll from a chat app. The meme of Vice President Vance, by the way, showed a fattened up version of Vance with a bald head and no eyebrows. DHS Assistant Secretary Trisha McLaughlin responded to questions from the fact-checking platform, Snopes, about the encounter with Mickelson,

and said, quote, "'Claims that Mads Mickelson was denied entry "'because of a JD Vance meme are false. "'Mickelson was refused entry into the United States "'for his admitted drug use." End quote. Customs and Border Protection similarly shared an article from the Daily Mail about Mikaelson's entry denial and wrote, quote, false.

Mads Mikaelson was not denied entry for any memes or political reasons. It was for his admitted drug use. End quote. Mikaelson did acknowledge that he was questioned about drug use and what he told agents is that he tried marijuana once in Germany and once in New Mexico, but he didn't feel that that was relevant because it's legal in both places. Now in furtherance of this claim that he was denied because of the meme, he shared a picture of a page from the DHS form I-877, which is also known as a record of sworn statement in administrative proceedings. And the document is dated June 11, 2025, which matches

Mickelson's date of arrival at the Newark airport, and it's signed by a CBP officer. The document says that Mickelson was determined inadmissible as an immigrant who is not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa. It goes on to say, quote, You do not appear to be a bona fide visitor for pleasure and cannot overcome the presumption of being an intending immigrant at this time because it appears you are attempting to engage in unauthorized employment without authorization and proper documentation. And then the text you can tell continues onto the next page, but that next page wasn't provided by Mickelson.

So from what we know of the form, it says nothing about drug use or the meme. Mickelson says that CBP officers verbally told him that he was being denied entry because of extremist propaganda and narcotic paraphernalia, but did not note that on the form. So that's what we know about that. Before I sign off for the day, I want to quickly note that the Supreme Court released four

new decisions this morning and is releasing six more tomorrow. Tomorrow will be the last day of their term. And what that means is we will be getting decisions in the more high profile cases tomorrow. I'm thinking what I'm going to do is I'll do a dedicated sort of like Supreme Court review episode next week on Thursday where I'll cover the decisions that were released this morning and the decisions that are going to be released tomorrow. And then of course that'll also give me some time to compile questions from all of you. So if any decisions come out that you want more clarity on, feel free to write to me

via Instagram DM or through my website and I'll try to answer those questions in Thursday's episode. And then later in July I'll actually be resharing an older episode all about the Supreme Court so I think it'll tie in really well with the upcoming Thursday episode about the Supreme Court's final decisions for the term. Thank you so much for being here. Don't forget to subscribe to the newsletter which you can do by clicking the link in the show notes. Have a fantastic weekend and I will talk to you on Monday.