UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (6/5/25): Musk and Trump's Differences Grow, Trump's New 'Travel Ban,' Rescission of Biden's Abortion Guidance, a Rumored 'Citizen Tracking' National Database, and More.

Episode Date: June 5, 2025

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: Trump Sends $9.4B Rescission Package to Congress (0:35) Musk and Trump's Feud Heats Up Following Criticism of Big Beautiful Bill (*Since recording, Musk has posted more - including an allegation that Trump is in the Epstein files*) (3:34) Two Chinese National Arrested for Smuggling Fungus into U.S. (9:33) Hegseth Orders Renaming of Harvey Milk Navy Ship (12:57) Increased Tariffs on Aluminum and Steel Take Effect; Here's What It'll Impact (15:30) Missouri Supreme Court Allows Abortion Restrictions to Take Effect Despite Recent Constitutional Amendment Allowing Abortions (17:23) Trump Administration Removes Biden-era Abortion Guidance (23:45) Trump Issues New Admissions Ban (29:35) Trump Bans New Nonimmigrant Students from Enrolling at Harvard (35:16) Trump Orders DOJ to Investigate Biden's Use of Autopen; Here's What to Know About the Autopen (37:42) Judge Allows Abrego Garcia's to Seek Sanctions Against Government (40:33) Supreme Court Releases Six Opinions, Including Reverse Discrimination Case (42:16) Quick Hitters: Karine Jean Pierre Switches Parties, CBO Estimates Impact of BBB, Fertility Clinic Co-Conspirator Arrested, Family of Boulder Attacker in ICE Custody, Ed. Dept. Reports Columbia to Accreditor, Four States Petition FDA Over Abortion Pill (45:49) Rumor Has It: Is the Administration Creating a National Database to Track Citizens? Did a DOGE Audit Find James Comey Paid Himself $16M Dollars? Did Bondi Threaten to Arrest Anyone Who Called Trump 'TACO?' (48:19) 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

You hear that? Pfft, ugh, paid. And done. That's the sound of bills being paid on time. But with the BMO Eclipse Rise Visa Card, paying your bills could sound like this. Yes! Earn rewards for paying your bill in full and on time each month.

Rise to rewards with the BMO Eclipse Rise Visa Card. Terms and conditions apply. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, June 5th. Let's talk about some news. We have a lot to talk about today. So per usual, we'll for the most part go in chronological order since the last episode.

So we'll start with any Monday news that didn't make it into Monday's episode and then we'll work our way to today. And today alone, the Supreme Court released six opinions, which is a lot and you know, we can't miss those. So that just means we have a lot more to cover. All right, this week, President Trump sent a $9.4 billion

rescissions package to Congress, asking it to cut funding for certain entities and approve Doge proposed cuts. So aside from the fact that this is a very relevant story, I wanted to cover it because I think it illustrates the separation of powers well. And a couple of weeks ago, I did that three-part series where I explained that Congress has the power of the purse and that the president does not get to cut spending unilaterally. He has to ask Congress to cut spending. So a rescission is a request that the president makes to Congress, which asks Congress to

cut or allocate funding differently than the way Congress previously appropriated it. If approved by Congress, spending would follow the rescission package proposal and the former congressional appropriation no longer applies. The package only requires a simple majority in both the House and the Senate to pass and it must pass both chambers within 45 days of receipt. If Congress does not approve the package within 45 days, the request essentially dies and funding levels just stay where they're at. So this $9.4 billion proposal that the president just sent to Congress

includes cuts for the US Agency for International Development or USAID, NPR and PBS, per that recent executive order we've been talking about, and it would approve Doge proposed cuts. Of the total $9.4 billion, about $8.3 billion of it is attributed to foreign aid. A significant portion of that foreign aid money was approved specifically for USAID, which, as you might remember earlier this year year was largely dismantled by Doge. An additional 142 million would be cut from UNICEF, 9 million would be cut from the US President's Emergency Plan for

AIDS Relief, and 1.1 billion would be cut from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. So to put the cuts into perspective, the US government currently spends more than $6.8 trillion annually, and if passed, this proposal would cut about $9.4 billion of that $6.8 trillion. With all of this said, rescission packages have recently been known to fail. Congress typically rejects executive attempts to control or allocate spending. There hasn't been a successful rescission package in several years. In fact, the last successful rescission package was during the Clinton administration. In the years before

the Clinton administration, rescission packages passed more frequently, but since then they rarely do. Trump actually tried to pass a $15.3 billion resission package in 2018, and it passed the House, but it did not pass the Senate. And at that point, Republicans did have the majority in both chambers like they do now, so we'll have to see what happens with this one. In some spending-adjacent news, Elon Musk is making more headlines this week after hitting a bit harder on the big beautiful bill. Last week we talked about Musk's original comment which was basically just that he was disappointed in the spending bill but he didn't really get too hyped up about it at that point. This week though

he's ramping up his take especially today. So Musk posted to X on Tuesday of this week he said quote, I sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it. You know you did wrong. You know it. End quote. Musk added to that post, quote, it will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to two and a half trillion dollars and burden American citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt." End quote. Musk also replied to another user's post on X that talked about the annual interest that the US currently pays on its debt. So the original post said, quote, we pay over

100 billion dollars per month on interest on the national debt, 1.2 trillion dollars per year. That's about 25% of all government revenue going to pay interest on the debt. Musk's reply then said, quote, interest payments already consume 25% of government revenue. If the massive deficit spending continues, there will only be money for interest payments and nothing else. No Social Security, no medical, no defense, nothing." End quote. And just to provide a little bit of clarity there, the number isn't quite 25%. So as a share of federal revenues, federal interest payments are expected to

rise to 18.4% by the end of this year, which would exceed the previous high set in 1991. As a percentage of total spending, interest costs are expected to reach 15.6% by 2031. Currently, net interest is the second largest payment for the federal government. The federal government spends $907 billion on social security and $579 billion on net interest. The next number is 555 billion dollars,

which is spent on Medicare, and then 536 billion, which is the amount spent on national defense. Musk also posted, quote, "'Congress is making America bankrupt.' He also said, quote, "'Call your Senator, call your Congressman. Bankrupting America is not okay.

Kill the bill.' End quote. And then in another post, Musk said, quote, "'America is in the fast lane to debt slavery.'" End quote. That post was in response to a graph showing it took 221 years for the total US debt to reach $12 trillion. And in the last four years alone,

we've added another 12 trillion. That isn't necessarily true either. So if we date back all the way to 1776, it took 228 years for our debt to reach 12 trillion dollars. In the last four years, we've added about three trillion dollars. In the last 10 years, we added 12 trillion. Regardless, still proportionately high. As we talked about last week, Musk's goal is to shrink government spending. So naturally he is not on board with the bill the way it currently stands. And he's not the only Republican not on board either. Multiple Republican senators are against the debt ceiling

increase because remember, traditional conservatism is in part about being fiscally conservative with the government's budget, saving money, not ballooning the debt. So those that are sticking with the traditional conservative values are not pleased with this five trillion dollar debt ceiling increase that is currently included in the bill. Senator Rand Paul is one of those senators who wrote on X this week, quote, I agree with Elon. We have both seen the massive waste in government spending and we know another five trillion dollars in debt is a huge mistake. We can and must do better. Back in April, Senator Paul similarly wrote, "...I wholeheartedly support the cuts President Trump, Elon Musk and Doge have put forward, but if the cuts are real, why does the

bill expand our debt by five trillion dollars? Congress math once again doesn't add up. GOP holdouts block action." Other senators have called for similar spending decreases. Senator Ted Cruz is one of them. He called for the Senate to, quote, make the bill substantially better. So today, things escalated between Musk and the president. The president was taking questions from the Oval Office and Musk was responding to these questions in real time on X. He wasn't in the Oval Office when President Trump was answering these questions, so instead he was posting responses to X, like I said. So Musk reposted old posts from Trump, including a 2013 post in which Trump said, quote, I cannot believe the Republicans are extending the debt

ceiling. I am a Republican and I am embarrassed, end quote. Another 2012 post from Trump that was reshared by Musk today reads, quote, no member of Congress should be eligible for reelection if our country's budget is not balanced. Deficits not allowed. End quote. So in the Oval Office Trump was telling reporters that he's very disappointed in Elon because Elon knew the inner workings of the bill better than almost anyone and that he had only developed a problem with the bill when they cut the EV mandate. And in response to that Musk wrote on X

quote, false this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of the night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it. End quote. Musk also wrote on X that Trump wouldn't have won the election if it weren't for him, writing quote, without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the house, and the Republican would be 51-49 in the Senate. Such ingratitude. End quote.

So I didn't have a chance to cover all of the, you know, comments by President Trump and the responses by Elon Musk because this was sort of a last minute addition addition into the episode and as you will see this episode is already quite lengthy. So that's the latest there. The tensions are obviously escalating. If they escalate further, you know I will keep you updated. In some other news, on Tuesday the DHS released a statement that two Chinese nationals had been charged after smuggling a fungus called, I'm going to try this one, Fusarium graminerium into the United States. Now, before we get into the details of the story and what happened here, let me talk

a little bit about this fungus, which I can barely pronounce. For one, it's a fungus that infects grain crops. Think things like wheat, barley, oats, corn, etc. When a plant becomes infected it causes a disease that damages the grain quality and reduces crop yields. It can also pose health risks to human and animals. It can cause effects like vomiting, liver damage, as well as reproductive issues. But due to its potential to devastate crops and contaminate food supplies, it is classified as an agro-terrorism

weapon. Agro-terrorism is an act of terrorism that specifically targets the agricultural sector to disrupt food supplies or inflict economic damage. So knowing that, the two people charged are Wu Xinjian and Zeng Yonglu, both citizens of the People's Republic of China. Jian has a doctorate degree in plant pathogens that she received in China, and after graduating she received Chinese government funding for her work on this particular fungus in China. But Jian then went on to work at the University of Michigan here in the United States as a research fellow. Liu is Jian's boyfriend.

He worked at the same Chinese university where he also conducted research on this particular fungus. And on July 27th of last year, he entered the United States. Now at the time, he said he was visiting his girlfriend and then he was returning to China to start his own lab. He allegedly told authorities

that he had no work materials with him, but after a second screening of his luggage, authorities found tissues which concealed a note written in Chinese, a round piece of filter paper with a series of circles drawn on it, and then four clear plastic baggies with small clumps of reddish plant material inside. Liu told authorities he didn't know how those materials ended up in his bag and suggested that someone had placed them there without his knowledge. After further questioning he eventually admitted that he had hid the samples in his backpack because he knew there were import restrictions in the United States

and he further admitted that he put the samples in a wad of tissue so authorities would be less likely to find them and confiscate them. Customs and Border Patrol officers ultimately denied his admission to the United States based on their finding and then laboratory testing confirmed the fungus. After the incident, FBI agents interviewed Jian. She claimed that she didn't know anything about her boyfriend smuggling or his intent to conduct research at the lab during his visit. However, an investigation into their electronic communications showed that the two had discussed shipping biological materials and had discussed doing research together in the lab at the University of Michigan.

Electronic evidence also showed that she had previously been involved with smuggling packages of biological material into the United States. Keep in mind that the complaint, which is where I'm gathering all of this information, it is all alleged facts, not necessarily evidence of guilt. Gianna appeared in court today. She did not enter a plea, but she is scheduled for a detention hearing today, which will determine whether she will be released or held in custody until trial. Switching gears a bit, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered the renaming of a US Navy ship, which is currently named after Harvey Milk, a San Francisco gay

rights activist. The Navy ship was named in 2016 by then Navy Secretary Ray Mabus during the Obama administration. He had decided to name all of these John Lewis class oilers after different civil and human rights leaders. Other ships in that class are named after prominent figures like Harriet Tubman, Thurgood Marshall, Robert F. Kennedy, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. So Marshall and Ginsburg were Supreme Court justices and Tubman was a black abolitionist who helped slaves escape the South via the Underground Railroad, right? Now Harvey Milk was one of the first openly gay elected officials in

the United States. He was elected in 1977 to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and was well known as an icon of the gay civil rights movement. During his time as supervisor, he helped pass gay rights legislation in San Francisco that prohibited anti-gay discrimination in housing and employment. He was eventually assassinated in 1978, just 10 months after taking that supervisor position. But since his death, he has remained an important figure for LGBTQ activism. In 2008, there was a movie release sharing his story, and he was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009. Now, Hegseth has not given an explicit reason for the name change, but in an email to news

outlets the Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said, quote, Secretary Hegseth is committed to ensuring that the names attached to all DOD installations and assets are reflective of the commander-in-chief's priorities, our nation's history, and the warrior ethos." End quote. US officials have said that a small team has been put together to rename the ship and a new name is expected this month. According to military.com,

which was the first outlet to report on the news and actually see the memo from Hegseth, a defense official confirmed that the Navy was making preparations to strip the ship of its name, official confirmed that the Navy was making preparations to strip the ship of its name, but noted that the Navy secretary was ordered to do so by Hegseth. The official also said that the timing of the announcement occurring during Pride Month was intentional.

And on a related note, CBS reported earlier this week that the Navy is also considering renaming the other John Lewis class oilers, but we don't have any sort of confirmation on that. Quick break here. When I come back, we'll talk about tariffs, some abortion related news, Biden's auto pen, and more. 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 $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees exclusions and terms apply.

Instacart, groceries that over-deliver. Whether it's a family member, friend, or furry companion joining your summer road trip, enjoy the peace of mind that comes with Volvo's legendary safety. During Volvo Discover Days, enjoy limited time savings as you make plans to cruise through Muskoka or down Toronto's bustling streets. From now until June 30th, lease a 2025 Volvo XC60 from 1.74% and save up to $4,000. Condition supply. Visit your GTA Volvo retailer or go to volvocars.ca for full details. Welcome back. Let's give a tariff update. So in Monday's episode, I mentioned that the president announced he was going to be doubling tariffs on steel and aluminum from 25% to 50%. Those new

tariffs took effect yesterday, so let's talk about what this means. According to the president, his stated goal of this tariff hike is to support and encourage domestic production of both steel and aluminum here in the United States, which is obviously what domestic means. Okay, currently about 25% of all steel used in the United States is imported. Most of it comes from Mexico and Canada. About half of all aluminum used in the United States is imported. Most of it comes from Canada.

Experts say that these tariffs are likely to increase prices as is true for most goods facing tariffs. But let's take a look at exactly what products might be impacted the most. So cars and trucks, steel makes up about 60% of an average car's weight. So with extra production costs to cover tariffs on steel, the total cost will likely increase. This is because with the higher cost of steel,

production costs will be higher for manufacturers, and then the total cost of the car will likely increase as well. Trump said it's expected that this will only increase the average cost of a car by about $300 But some experts disagree with some estimates putting the increase at $2,000 per car the increased tariff on aluminum has the potential to increase prices in the food and beverage industry as we know Aluminum cans are often what soda beer and canned foods are packed in so we could see an impact there and then major home appliances

Are also likely going to be impacted. So things like refrigerators, dishwashers, washing machines, they all rely on steel. And construction too. Construction has many components that rely on both aluminum and steel. Think of something as small as nails in construction, right?

Nails are often made of aluminum and steel. Some estimates show construction of a home could go up by around $10,000 on average. Now for some abortion related news. There's actually two abortion stories today starting with this first one. A Tuesday ruling out of the Missouri Supreme Court has temporarily reinstated restrictions which makes obtaining an abortion in Missouri practically impossible. This is despite Missouri voters voting to enshrine the right to abortion in Missouri practically impossible. This is despite Missouri voters voting to enshrine the right to abortion in their state constitution last November. Naturally, people are wondering

how the Supreme Court or the state Supreme Court, I should clarify, can make such a decision that, you know, effectively bans abortions despite the residents of Missouri passing a constitutional amendment just a few months ago. So to fully understand what's going on here, we got to start from the beginning. Before Roe versus Wade was overturned in 2022, the state of Missouri had what's called a trigger law or a trigger ban, which would ban all abortions in the state if the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Roe versus Wade at any point. So Roe versus Wade being overturned would basically be the trigger, right, that prompted the state law to take effect. When Roe vs Wade was overturned in 2022, the trigger ban immediately went into effect and abortion access was completely cut off in the state. Fast forward to November of

2024, you may remember some states put abortion on the ballot for voters to decide whether the right to abortion would be enshrined in their state constitution. Well, Missouri was one of those states and it passed. So that ballot measure amended the state's constitution, overturned the state ban on abortion and gave women a state constitutional right to abortion. However, even with abortion being enshrined in the state constitution, there were many restrictions

that remained in place. And these restrictions made accessing abortions extremely difficult. Things like waiting periods before being able to obtain an abortion, strict limits on where abortions could be performed, strict regulations with licensing, clinics have to have admitting privileges

at a hospital no further than 15 minutes away, clinics have to comply with the standards governing ambulatory surgical centers. Clinics have to perform pelvic exams before every procedure, things of that nature. So these restrictions are so strict and make operating abortion clinics so difficult that they practically ban abortion. To give you a bit of context, a lot of these restrictions were put into place in 2018, and before 2018 there were 26 abortion clinics in the state. After the restrictions were put into place in 2018, only one clinic stayed open because, like I've said, the restrictions just make it so difficult to actually operate these clinics. And that last remaining clinic closed when Roe

versus Wade was overturned. So Missouri had no abortion clinics between 2022 with the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the end of 2024 when the state's constitutional amendment was ultimately passed. But because of these tight restrictions, Planned Parenthood, as well as some other plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit against the state of Missouri challenging the state's abortion restrictions. They argued that the restrictions undermine the state constitution and discriminate specifically against abortion by regulating abortion in a way that no other medical services are regulated. So the case is actually set for trial in January 2026, but in the meantime, the plaintiffs wanted

the court to prohibit the state from enforcing these restrictions while they await trial. And in two separate rulings in December and in February, a state trial judge granted that request. The judge temporarily blocked a lot of the restrictions and without getting too into the weeds of constitutionality standards and all of that, the judge basically reasoned that these restrictions didn't serve a compelling government interest or use the least restrictive means of accomplishing the legislature's goal of restricting abortion and therefore she wasn't going to let these restrictions be enforced while they awaited trial.

She also agreed that the restrictions discriminated specifically against abortion by regulating abortion in ways that other medical services were not being regulated. So following that, what does the state of Missouri do? The state of Missouri takes it to the state Supreme Court, right? Because they wanted that decision overturned so that they could allow or that they could continue enforcing these restrictions until trial in January 2026. And this week, the Missouri Supreme Court granted that request. It reasoned that the judge that had blocked the restrictions in the first place used the wrong standard in coming to her conclusion. So what this means is that while they await trial, the state can continue to enforce the restrictions. Consequently, following the ruling out of the state Supreme Court, Missouri's abortion clinics canceled all outstanding

abortion appointments and advised patients to travel out of state state supreme court, Missouri's abortion clinics canceled all outstanding abortion appointments and advise patients to travel out of state if they needed an abortion. Now, this is not the end of the issue. From here, it's likely that the state trial judge will revisit the issue and reassess the issue under this heightened standard mandated by the state supreme court.

But remember, that won't be the end of the end of the issue either, right? Because that can also get appealed again. And even in January, whatever that final ruling ends up being, that'll likely get appealed too. So we're likely to see this state issue play out well into 2026, possibly even into 2027. And lawmakers in Missouri have also approved another ballot measure for another constitutional amendment that would actually reimpose the state's abortion ban, but with exceptions for rape or incest. So we'll have to see what happens with that too. To be clear though, Missouri has not technically banned abortions, but per the state's restrictions that are now allowed to be enforced, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to obtain an abortion in the state. And that's why, although constitutional amendments,

you know, quote unquote guarantee a right, it doesn't always guarantee a right because laws can always pass that interfere with that, right? It's kind of like how we saw poll taxes and literacy taxes get enacted after the 15th Amendment in 1870. So the 15th Amendment granted African Americans the constitutional right to vote, but they were still turned away at the polls because of these other state-imposed restrictions. It wasn't until the 24th Amendment in 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and a Supreme Court decision in 1966 that actually resulted in African Americans getting equal access to the polls. So constitutional amendments aren't always as effective

as you might think. Okay, another abortion story. President Trump rescinded a Biden era directive to physicians and abortion providers that previously gave them legal assurances if they performed abortions in emergency situations in states that ban abortion. So let's back up as we usually do.

Here in the United States, we have a law called MTALA, which essentially requires all hospitals that receive funding for Medicare, which is nearly all hospitals across the United States, to conduct screening for emergency room patients and determine whether they have an emergency medical condition. Under MTALA, hospitals then must treat emergency conditions to the best of their ability without regard for the patient's ability to pay for the services required. If they can't treat those patients,

they have to transfer them to another hospital with the capacity to treat them. Treatment under EMTALA is required until the emergency medical condition is resolved or stabilized, and turning away patients requiring emergency care could cause a hospital to face federal investigations, fines, and even the loss of federal funding. Importantly, EMTALA does not specifically mention abortion and that's a whole other issue that we've seen it play out in a couple of different cases. The most recent one was, what was it?

Moyle versus Idaho. It might've been Idaho something. Anyway, okay. That's an aside. I'm getting on a tangent now. What I'm trying to say here is EMTALA is a vague law that just requires treatments of emergency conditions. So in 2021, the Biden administration released guidance titled the reinforcement of EMTALligation, which explicitly said that a doctor's duty to provide stabilizing treatment for pregnant patients preempts any directly conflicting state law or mandate that might otherwise prohibit or prevent such treatment. Still though, it didn't mention abortion. But then in 2022, after the Dobbs decision, the Biden administration issued further guidance that clarified that the reinforcement of EMTALA obligation means that EMTALA includes the need to perform stabilization abortion care if deemed medically necessary to treat a patient in emergency cases

It said the doctors must perform abortions in emergency departments even in states where the procedure is illegal Particularly if it serves as a stabilizing medical treatment for an emergency condition emergency medical conditions included but were not limited to ectopic pregnancy or pregnancy loss pregnancy pregnancy complications, emergent hypertensive disorders like preeclampsia with severe features, things of that nature. Note that this 2022 guidance expanded the 2021 guidance by explicitly mentioning abortion as care

rather than leaving stabilization treatment for pregnant patients ambiguous. The 2022 revision also clarified that state laws were preempted by the federal EMTALA statute in cases where a state law banned abortion without exceptions for life or the health of the pregnant patient. That 2021 and 2022 guidance is what has been rescinded by the Trump administration. So effectively what that rescission means is that the federal government is no longer assuring providers that they will be federally protected if a state chooses to prosecute

them for violating a state abortion ban in emergency situations. Here's the thing. All states with abortion bans have some sort of exception for medical emergencies or saving the life of the mother. However, what constitutes a medical emergency is ambiguous, right? So doctors have argued that this ambiguous nature of these state bans causes providers to sometimes delay or deny care because they're not sure if they're going to be in violation of the law if they do perform the abortion. Because what might seem like

an emergency to them may not be seen as an emergency to the state. What might be seen as necessary to save the life of the mother to them might not be seen as necessary to save the life of the mother to the state. Because what does it even mean for a mother's life to be in danger? What if the mom may not necessarily die but she'll be brain dead for the rest of her life or she'll be incapacitated in some way if the abortion isn't performed? Is that sufficient or is it not? So again, the Biden administration's goal with that 2022 guidance was to remove this ambiguity by explicitly telling providers that they would not be subject to prosecution for performing emergency abortions under state bans because they would

be protected under federal law. However, without those federal protections, now that that guidance has been rescinded, the effect is that the ambiguity issue will arise again and doctors won't be as quick to provide abortions in emergency situations as they have been in the last three-ish years because now they'll have a bit of fear of potential prosecution, losing their license, etc. Really just depends on the state and what the law is in that state. In rescinding the guidance, the Trump administration said the guidance does not reflect the policy of this administration. Importantly, the administration also said it

will, quote, continue to enforce EMTALA, which protects all individuals who present to a hospital emergency department seeking examination or treatment, including for identified emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy." End quote. So to recap, the administration says it will continue to enforce EMTALA to make sure emergency medical conditions are treated, but they won't be providing legal assurances or federal protections to providers who perform abortions in emergency situations. Okay, quick break. When I come back, we'll talk about Trump's new admission ban on 12 different countries, Biden's AutoPen, and more.

This is it, the day you finally ask for that big promotion. You're in front of your mirror with your Starbucks coffee. Be confident. Assertive. Remember eye contact. But also, remember to blink. Smile. But not too much. That's weird. What if you aren't any good at your job? What if they demote you instead? Okay. Don't be silly. You're smart. You're driven. You're gonna be late if you keep talking to the mirror. This promotion is yours. Go get them. Starbucks. It's never just coffee.

The white chocolate macadamia cream cold brew from Starbucks is made just the way you like it. Handcrafted cold foam topped with toasted cookie crumble. It's a sweet summer twist on iced coffee. Your cold brew is ready at Starbucks. Welcome back. Yesterday, President Trump signed an admission ban, otherwise known as a travel ban, seeking to prevent nationals from 12 countries from entering the United States and then partially restricting entry for nationals from other nations. The 12 countries with a full ban include Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Countries with partial restrictions include Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo,

Turkmenistan and Venezuela. As of now, this order will take effect Monday at 12.01 am Eastern Time. Now, a lot of outlets are using the word travel ban. And while that's not necessary, it's not not true. I just don't feel like it adequately captures the reality of the scenario. Because sure, the ban prohibits nationals from these countries from traveling to the United States. But really, it's an admission ban. They can't come here at all. Whether it's just for, you know, vacation or seeking status here. Like, it's just a total admission ban. They can't come here at all whether it's just for you know vacation or seeking status here like it's just a total admission ban. So a few things to talk about here first what exactly does the admission ban say and what is its rationale? Well on day one of

Trump's presidency he sent an executive order which directed a few things but in part it required the DHS, State Department, Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence to identify countries for which vetting and screening information is, quote, so deficient as to warrant a partial or full suspension on the admission of nationals from those countries. And these federal officials were directed to identify how many nationals from those countries have entered or have been admitted into the United States on or since the day President Biden took office in 2021. So that assessment was done per the order this admission ban followed. The ban, by the way, was implemented via a proclamation, which is different than an executive order. An executive order directs other federal officials to do something, whereas a proclamation is

a formal announcement or declaration. So as its rationale, the proclamation cites to protecting citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit immigration laws for malevolent purposes. It also says that the countries with deficient vetting and screening processes have taken advantage of the U.S. in their exploitation of our visa system and their historic failure to accept back their removable nationals. And then finally, it says nationals of some countries also pose significant risks of overstaying their visas in the United States, which increases burdens on immigration and law enforcement components of the United States and often exacerbates other risks related to national security

and public safety. Importantly, President Trump implemented a similar ban in 2017 and back then Trump actually issued three different but related bans. So the first order imposed a 90-day ban on the entry into the United States of citizens from seven countries – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. That order also put a 120-day hold on the admissions of refugees, but included an exception for refugees who were religious minorities in their home countries. That order ended up getting blocked by the lower courts on the basis that it targeted Muslims and Trump went back to the drawing board. Trump's second order imposed a 90-day ban on the entry of citizens from six of the seven

countries, no Iraq this time, and suspended the entry of all refugees, without any exception for religious minorities. That order was again blocked by the lower courts, and Trump went to the Supreme Court, which initially agreed to hear the case, but the case was actually later removed from the court's calendar because that 90-day period had already expired. So Trump, once that 90 days expired, reissued the order, and it was again challenged in the courts. This time, the Supreme Court upheld it. The ruling was 5-4. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion. He said that the Immigration and National it. The ruling was five to four. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion. He said that the Immigration and Nationality Act

exudes deference to the president and that he has broad discretion to suspend the entry of non-citizens into the United States. Roberts said the president can block non-citizens from coming into the United States if he determines that allowing them to enter would be detrimental to the interests of the country. One of the biggest

arguments against the ban in the case was that it specifically targeted Muslim countries. That's what the challengers really focused on. But the court rejected that argument. The court didn't deny that the order targeted Muslim countries, but it said that that's within the president's power to do. Justice Sotomayor, on the other hand, disagreed with the majority on that count. She wrote that the court had blindly endorsed a discriminatory policy motivated by animosity. Now, my point in telling you that is the newest ban, the one that we just saw yesterday, it doesn't target any one group of people, or at least it doesn't obviously target one group of people, right? It's different than the ban during Trump's first term. This new order targets a wider range of countries,

which as cited to in the proclamation, have a deficient vetting process. So I'm sure this new order will be challenged as well, but this is just to say that the arguments against it will likely be different than what we saw in Trump's first term. And the last difference I want to note is that this new ban does not provide an end date. Instead, it says that within 90 days of the date of the proclamation and every 180 days thereafter, the Secretary of State, along with other agency officials, must recommend whether any suspensions and limitations should be continued, terminated, modified, or supplemented. So once there has been a lawsuit filed and something happens with that lawsuit, because it's only a matter of time, I will update you accordingly. Speaking of proclamations though, President Trump signed another proclamation yesterday

suspending the entry of any new non-immigrant Harvard student under FM or J visas. The proclamation also directs the Secretary of State to consider revoking existing FM or J visas for current Harvard students who meet the proclamation's criteria. And it specifically excludes non-immigrant students attending other universities through the student exchange visa program. So this order is just for Harvard. If you caught my recent May 27th episode, I talked about Harvard's failure to provide the government with requested information about its foreign students. The DHS had requested information on the illegal activity and disciplinary records of Harvard's international students and Harvard said it provided some information, but the DHS said

it wasn't enough. Shortly thereafter, the DHS went ahead and revoked Harvard's exchange visitor program certification, which is essentially what gives it the ability to enroll international students. But about a week ago, a judge blocked the administration from revoking Harvard certification. And now here we are. Trump signed this proclamation, which is basically another avenue for the administration

to take to attempt to prevent Harvard's enrollment of foreign students. Notably, this proclamation will likely get challenged as well. So the proclamation reads in part, quote, protecting our national security requires host institutions of foreign students to provide sufficient information when asked to enable the federal government to identify and address misconduct by those foreign students. In my judgment, it presents an unacceptable risk to our nation's security for an academic institution to refuse to provide sufficient information when asked about known

instances of misconduct and criminality committed by its foreign students. Harvard provided data on misconduct by only three students, and the data it provided was so deficient that the DHS could not evaluate whether it should take further actions. Harvard's actions show that either it is not fully reporting its disciplinary records for foreign students or is not seriously policing its foreign students. In my judgment, these actions and failures directly undermine the federal government's ability to ensure that foreign nationals admitted on student

or exchange visitor visas remain in compliance with federal law. These concerns have compelled the federal government to conclude that Harvard University is no longer a trustworthy steward of international student and exchange visitor programs." End quote. So like I said, I'm sure we will see this challenge in court.

I will update you should anything noteworthy take place. Former President Biden's use of auto pen is still under investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and now the president has directed the DOJ to open its own investigation. According to Reuters, the pardon attorney in the DOJ sent an email to staff to say that it's conducting an investigation into Biden's competence and whether people were quote,

taking advantage of him through use of auto pen or other means, end quote. Here's what I wanna say about this because a lot of people wrote in asking me, what is auto pen? Is it used a lot? Like, is this out of the norm? This is what I'll say. The use of auto pens is not new. Presidents have used auto pens throughout history. In fact, the concept of auto pens goes back to President Jefferson in 1803. Since then, Presidents Truman, Ford, Johnson and Kennedy are all known to

have used it. President Bush was the first to ask the DOJ whether a president could use AutoPen to sign a bill. Before this, it was really just used for presidential autographs. And in answering Bush's question, the DOJ said that the president can direct a subordinate to put his signature on a bill, sure, but only so long as the president approves the bill. The president cannot allow someone else to review the bill, approve it, and sign it into law. So while the question has never been explicitly answered, legal experts say that the use of an auto pen

in a situation where a document was signed without the president's authorization or direction to do so would render a document void. And that is what these investigations into President Biden are focused on, whether Biden knew his signature was being affixed to these documents. That distinction is crucial. And of course, the most high profile documents that are in question are, you know, the pardons for his son Hunter, the pardon for Dr. Fauci, the pardon for the former chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, General Mark Milley. So those

are the kinds of things that they're looking at. Now, legal experts note that while the president's power to grant pardons is a core constitutional power, meaning it is strictly reserved for the president, it cannot be checked by the other branches of government, the legitimacy of these pardons hinges on the president's awareness and intent. So if evidence comes to light that indicates that the pardons were issued without Biden's knowledge, it could most

certainly lead to legal challenges and the potential reversal of those pardons. However, proving that claim would require a ton of evidence which may not exist. And as a final note, the inquiries being done by the House Committee and DOJ also encompass the broader context of Biden's health during his presidency. As I'm sure you know, allegations have surfaced context of Biden's health during his presidency. As I'm sure you know, allegations have surfaced suggesting that Biden's cognitive abilities may have declined earlier than everyone knew, so the investigation is trying to determine whether any individuals within the administration may have exploited this alleged decline to exercise presidential powers without

proper authority. The judge overseeing Abrego Garcia's case has given Abrego Garcia's attorneys the ability to go after sanctions against the government. So as I'm sure all of us know at this point, Abrego Garcia is the Salvadoran national who was deported to El Salvador in March despite a 2019 immigration order that barred his removal. ICE acknowledged that Abrego Garcia's deportation was an administrative error, but despite that admission, Abrego Garcia remains in El Salvador. On Wednesday, the judge in the case allowed Abrego Garcia's lawyers to file a motion for sanctions against the government. Now, sanctions are a legal penalty that are

imposed if a party fails to follow a court's order, and the sanctions here actually have nothing to do with the fact that Abrego Garcia is still in El Salvador. Instead, these sanctions have to do with the government failing to comply with an information request from the court. So the judge had previously ordered the government to explain how Abrego-Garcia's deportation happened, but Abrego-Garcia's lawyers say the documents that the government provided in response to that request were either heavily redacted or improperly labeled as confidential. Because of the government's alleged failure to adequately answer the court-ordered question,

the judge gave the go-ahead for Abrego Garcia's attorneys to request sanctions. And sanctions can range from monetary fines to more serious outcomes like a ruling in favor of the party seeking sanctions on certain issues. So it really just depends. But keep in mind, this was just the go-ahead for a break of Garcia's attorneys to file the motion seeking sanctions. The judge still has to rule on that motion before the government would potentially be liable

for anything. Final break of the episode here. When I come back, we'll talk about some new rulings out of the Supreme Court, some quick hitters and rumor has it. It's the summer big red sale at Canadian Tire. Save up to 50%. What are you doing? These are the biggest deals of the Supreme Court, some quick hitters and rumor has it. It's the summer big red sale at Canadian Tire. Save up to 50%. What are you doing?

These are the biggest deals of the season. I'm shouting it from the rooftop. We have a radio ad. You don't need to be up there. The summer big red sale is on from June 5th to June 12th. Conditions apply. Details online. Welcome back.

We're in the homestretch now. This morning, the Supreme Court released six opinions, which is quite a lot. So rather than doing a deep dive into all six, I'm basically just going to tell you what the question was for the court in that particular case and then how the court answered it. Starting with the reverse discrimination case, Ames versus Ohio Department of Youth Services. The question for the justices was whether a majority group individual, in this case

a white straight woman, must satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to win on an employment discrimination claim. The appellate court had said yes, but the Supreme Court today said no. It was a unanimous decision written by Justice Jackson. The effect of that decision is that everyone, whether a minority group person or a majority group person, is held to the same standard in bringing an employment discrimination claim. The next case, Smith & Wesson vs. Mexico, also unanimous. The question for the justices was whether Smith & Wesson and seven other gun makers

could be held liable for aiding and abetting violence committed by Mexican drug cartels with US-made weapons. The justices said no. In the 9-0 decision, they held that the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act, which is intended to protect the gun industry from lawsuits for the misuse of guns by others, prohibits the Mexican government from pursuing a claim. The third decision today was in a case called Catholic Charities Bureau vs. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission. This was also unanimous, and the issue was whether the state of Wisconsin properly denied an exemption from a state unemployment tax to the Catholic Charities Group.

So the exemption applies to nonprofits that are operated primarily for religious purposes. The state Supreme Court had said that Catholic Charities did not qualify for the exemption because it didn't proselytize and because it served non-Catholics as well. The Supreme Court reversed that decision finding that the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling violated the First Amendment. The fourth decision today was in a case called CC DeVos versus Antrix Corporation. It was again unanimous. This was a very boring question of law. Basically, I don't even want to, half of you guys aren't going to understand this this probably more I barely understand it So basically to exercise personal jurisdiction over another state does the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act require proof of Minimum contacts over and above the contacts already required by the acts enumerated exemptions

This room court unanimously said no Like I said pretty boring except for maybe a few law nerds out there that will appreciate that. The fifth decision was in a case called Bloom Bank versus Honickman, and this is another boring procedural case, but also unanimous. Quite honestly, I don't even know how to describe these decisions without getting into all of the boring civil procedure rules you learn in your first year of law school, but I'll try it. So when a court closes a case and the plaintiff wants that case reopened, what is the standard that allows a plaintiff to successfully reopen that case? That was the question for the justices.

All nine justices held that in order to reopen a case, a party must show extraordinary circumstances. And then the sixth and final decision today was in a case called Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings versus Davis. Third and final boring procedural case, the issue was whether a district court can certify a class action lawsuit that includes people who have not suffered any cognizable injury. This one is actually dismissed as improvidently granted, which basically means the court should have never taken the case in the first place, so they're just dismissing it. Justice Kavanaugh was

the lone dissenter in the case. He did say he would have held that federal courts cannot certify a damages class in a class action lawsuit that includes both injured and uninjured members. All right, time for some quick hitters. Biden's former press secretary, Kareen Jean-Pierre, has announced she's leaving the Democratic Party and becoming an independent. She said in a statement, quote, until January 20th, I was responsible for speaking on behalf of the president of the United States at noon on that, quote, until January 20th, I was responsible for speaking on behalf of the President of the United States at noon on that day, meaning on January 20th, I became a private citizen who, like all Americans and many of our allies around the world, had to contend with what was to come next for our country. End quote. This news accompanies her new book

coming out in October called Independent, A Look Inside a Broken White House Outside the Party Lines. Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office released their estimates for the impacts of the big, beautiful bill. The CBO estimates a $2.4 trillion increase in the national deficit over the next 10 years, which is the result of an estimated $1.2 trillion in spending cuts, but also $3.7 trillion in tax cuts. The CBO is also estimating that over the next decade, a total of 16 million people could potentially go uninsured, 5.1 million of whom could lose coverage due to the new Affordable Care Enrollment Rules and expiring tax credits.

The FBI announced the arrest of a co-conspirator in the car bombing outside of a Palm Springs Fertility clinic last month. Officials said the co-conspirator provided large quantities of ammonium nitrate to the suspect, which was used to create the explosive. He had allegedly fled to Europe just four days after the bombing and was arrested at a New York airport after first being detained in Poland. He has been charged with conspiracy to manufacture an unregistered device and terrorism. The suspect who carried out the bombing, by the way, died at the scene. On Tuesday, ICE agents apprehended the family of the man responsible for the recent attack in Boulder, Colorado. Officials said they are working to deport them quickly, but as of now they have not been deported. The Department of

Education has notified Columbia's accreditor that Columbia is in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws and that they therefore do not meet the standards for accreditation. The department is alleging that Columbia's deliberate indifference towards the harassment of Jewish students on campus violates federal anti-discrimination laws. From here the accreditor will review these claims and decide whether Columbia will lose its accreditation. If it does, students of Columbia would lose access to federal funds, including student grants and loans. Today, four states, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey,

and New York petitioned the FDA to lift restrictions on abortion pills. The states argue the FDA's current regulations make it difficult to prescribe Mifflapristone in primary care settings, which is one of the two drugs involved in a medication abortion. Okay, now it's time for Rumor Has It, which is my weekly segment where I address recent rumors submitted by all of you, and I either confirm them, dispel them, and or add context. Rumor has it that President Trump is creating a national database to track US citizens in partnership with a tech firm called Palantir Technologies. This one needs context. First and foremost, we do not

have explicit confirmation of a national database. The assumption comes from the fact, or I should say the assumption that a national database is being created, is stemming from a March executive order that called for sharing data across federal agencies. In issuing that order, President Trump said his goal is to maximize government efficiency by wasting fewer tax dollars with administrative overhead costs while also allowing for faster services by eliminating bureaucratic red tape. Now, at the same time, we know that this company, Palantir Technologies, has been working with multiple different federal agencies. Palantir is a data and technology firm founded by Peter Thiel that specializes in software platforms

through projects that aim to service counterterrorism agencies and the military through providing defense tools. Since Trump took office though, the role of Palantir in federal projects has increased. Palantir received more than $113 million in federal funds for new contracts with the DHS and the Pentagon. This doesn't include the $795 million contract it was awarded last week by the Defense Department. Palantir is also taking part in discussions with the Social Security Administration and the IRS, which reportedly may buy Palantir's technology to manage the systems involved with their agencies. Palantir's data analysis product Foundry has been adopted by at least four federal agencies including the DHS and HHS. So these partnerships with various federal agencies combined with Trump's March executive order calling for the streamlining of data

across agencies is what is leading to this assumption that the government is compiling a national database. Whether that assumption is true we don't know because the administration has not confirmed it. When the White House was asked about a national database, it responded by referring to Trump's March executive order, which again calls for the elimination of information silos and the streamlining of data collection across all agencies. So is the administration creating a national database filled with the information of US citizens? We can't say for sure, but that is what we know. Next

one, rumor has it that a Doge audit uncovered that former FBI director James Comey authorized either a $16 million or $6 million payment to himself while serving in his former role. This is false, let's add some context. This rumor originated from America's last line of defense or a LLOD, Allid, which is a network of Facebook pages

and websites that produce satirical content. Aled's Facebook introduction reads, quote, the flagship of the Aled network of trollery and propaganda for cash. Nothing on this page is real. So on February 28th, this Facebook account posted a satirical article titled Doge Demands James Comey Explained His $6 Million Self-Payment in 2016. The article claimed that a Doge audit found that Comey spent money specifically earmarked for operational security enhancements on personal items. The article goes on to list purchases such as an FBI-branded SuperSpy Kit for home use, the fake kit came with surveillance gadgets like binoculars that could see into the past, a pair of night vision socks, and a secret compartment in his refrigerator

labeled classified snacks. Pages affiliated with Alad continue to make similar posts more recently in late May and early June with headlines reading, Doge would like former FBI director James Comey to explain why he authorized a $6 million payment to himself in 2016, and James Comey authorized a $16 million payment to himself

while he was still head of the FBI So this one is false. The account that this came from is a satirical account Last one rumor has it that Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that the administration would arrest anyone who called President Trump a taco This is also false. But again, let's add some context for starters. Taco is an acronym for Trump always chickens out It was a term introduced last month by a columnist with the Financial Times who came up with the acronym as a shorthand to describe the volatility within the market patterns related to Trump's actions on tariffs. The idea behind it is that Trump's tariff threats have created a pattern that drives stocks down only for him to back off tariffs weeks later and quote-unquote chicken out,

which causes the stocks to surge. So the rumor that Bondi said the administration would arrest anyone who called Trump a taco originated from a picture posted to Facebook on May 28th that appeared to depict Bondi on Fox News with the subtitle, If you call him taco, we will arrest you. Now the image was posted under a Facebook page named Mrs. Putin, which also produces satirical content. And although the image posted to the account had been edited to look similar to Fox News, it did have several changes. Fox News was actually spelled Fox Moose with an M, same with Breaking News.

It was spelled Breaking News with an M. The image that was used of Bondi is actually a picture from when she sat in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee for her confirmation hearing, not an appearance at Fox News. So not true. The rumor is false. And I guess this would be a good time to remind you that Facebook is the worst when it comes to fake information, especially the images, most of which are AI generated. It's really crazy. The stuff I see on Facebook sometimes. So just be careful. Don't believe everything you see or hear, please. And that obviously goes for other social media platforms too, but I've noticed it's especially bad on Facebook. That is what I have for you today. Thank you for being here for this hour long episode. I hope you have a great weekend and I will talk to you on Monday.