UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (6/9/25): Is Trump's Deployment of the National Guard Lawful? PLUS What to Know About the Trump/Musk Feud, Abrego Garcia's Criminal Charges, and More.

Episode Date: June 9, 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: Recap of the Trump/Musk Feud; What We Know About Musk's Epstein Allegations (0:37) House Committee Subpoenas Biden's Former White House Doctor (10:05) Abrego Garcia Brought Back to U.S. to Face Criminal Charges; Here's What You Need to Know (12:38) ABC News Suspends Anchor After Critical Social Media Post of Stephen Miller and Trump (23:23) ICE Raids Prompt Protests in LA; Here's What You Need to Know About the Legality of Trump's National Guard Deployment (26:12) Quick Hitters: Vegas Re-Joins ICE Program, Migrants Stuck in Shipping Container, Hunter Biden Drops Lawsuit Against Fox News, WSJ Investigation Shows Pentagon Spread UFO Myths Intentionally (43:18) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to unbiased politics. Today is Monday, June 9th. Let's talk about some news. So we're actually going to cover less stories than usual today, but it's only because we're really diving into the top stories from the past few days. There are a couple of, you know, short stories thrown in there today, but for the most part, the Musk-Trump feud, Abrego Garcia's return to the United States, and then everything that's happening in LA right now

will take up the majority of the episode. So without further ado, let's get into it. Starting with the feud between Elon Musk and President Trump, which seems to have kind of blown over at this point, but I know a lot of you had questions, especially about the Epstein of it all. So let's do a quick recap of what happened and then I'll address, uh, address Musk's Epstein tweet. So Musk has been expressing some frustration over the big, beautiful bill.

He says his frustration is because the bill increases the debt ceiling by five trillion dollars. Trump says the real reason that Musk is mad is because the bill does away with the electric vehicle tax credits for the new and used vehicles. As we well know, that is Musk's whole business. Perhaps he's mad for both reasons. Who really knows? But either way, Musk has not been happy about this bill. His first comment about it was a couple of weeks ago during an interview with CBS Sunday Morning. He basically just very briefly said that, you know, he was disappointed in the bill.

He thought that a bill can be beautiful or it can be big, but it can't be both. And that was that. But then last Tuesday, Musk wrote on X. He said, quote, I'm 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, he then 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." He then continued to make a series of posts that day just commenting on the impact of the big beautiful bill, which I did fact check a few of those in the last episode if you want to know more on that. So that was on Tuesday, but Thursday is when it really escalated. Trump was taking questions from the Oval Office. He was asked

about the criticism that Musk had been voicing about the bill. And what Trump said is that he was disappointed in Musk because Musk knew the inner workings of the bill better than almost anyone, and that Musk had only taken issue with the bill when they cut the EV mandate. Trump also commented on Musk's work with Trump's campaign during the election cycle. He said that Musk had endorsed him very strongly and that Musk actually went up and campaigned for him, but that he still thought he would have won Pennsylvania easily either way with or without Musk's help. Ironically, Trump also noted at that point that Musk had not yet said anything bad about him personally, just about the bill. Little did he know things were about to get worse.

So as Trump is saying all of this, Musk is responding to Trump's comments on X. In response to Trump saying that Musk knew the inner workings of the bill. Musk wrote, 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. Then in responding to Trump's comments on the campaign, Musk wrote, quote, Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House, and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate. Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate." Musk then started reposting a series of Trump's old posts from 2012 and 2013. One of Trump's 2013 posts said, quote, I cannot believe the Republicans are extending the debt ceiling. I am a Republican and I'm embarrassed.

A 2012 post from Trump said, no member of Congress should be eligible for reelection in our countries, or sorry, if our country's budget is not balanced, deficits not allowed. End quote. Musk shared both of those with a thinking emoji, which obviously was just meant to point out the hypocrisy of Trump now trying to pass a bill that raises the debt ceiling by $5 trillion. Once Trump was done answering questions from the Oval Office,

he took to his own social media platform, Truth Social, to post his own responses to Musk responses. And in one of those posts he wrote, "'Elon was wearing thin. I asked him to leave. I took away his EV mandate that forced everyone to buy electric cars that nobody else wanted, that he knew for months I was going to do and he just went crazy." Trump's second post said, quote,

the easiest way to save money in our budget, billions and billions of dollars is to terminate Elon's governmental subsidies and contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it. So at this point, Musk is calling out Trump for being a hypocrite. Trump is threatening to cancel Musk's government contracts. And then Musk writes on X, quote, time to drop the really big bomb. At Real Donald Trump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT.

End quote. That post within the first couple of hours had over 100 million views. That's where people were really like, okay, this is getting a little crazy. That post has since been deleted. But shortly after, Trump responded saying in part, quote, "'I don't mind Elon turning against me,

but he should have done so months ago.'" And then he went on to defend the big, beautiful bill further. He did not acknowledge the Epstein allegation around the same time Musk shared another users post which suggested that Trump be impeached and JD Vance take over and Yeah at this point is really just like Musk continuing on criticizing Trump. This was all happening between 2 and 5 PM ish maybe a little later in the night on Thursday. But once Trump made those two truth social posts in response to Musk, Trump

actually didn't really say anything else. And around 9 30 p.m. that night, Thursday night, Musk reposted another post on X that said, I support Donald Trump and Elon Musk and they should make peace for the benefit of our great country. We are much stronger together than apart. And in sharing that post, Musk wrote, you are not wrong. The next time that Trump made any sort of remarks on his own was a couple of days later on Saturday. In talking to reporters, Trump just said he wasn't thinking about his feud with Musk and that he did not want to speak to Musk. So that's where things are at. But what I want to do is I want to circle back to Musk's now deleted post about Trump being in the Epstein files. What I'll say first

is that Musk's post provided no evidence. We don't know where he got that information or how he would have gained access to the sealed files. He just kind of said it right. There was nothing corroborating along with it. That being said, I know a lot of you had questions about whether there is any truth to Trump and Epstein's connection. So we'll talk about what we know. We know that Trump and Epstein were connected both in their New York and Florida social circles. They've been seen together in pictures and in videos in 2022 in interview with New York magazine before any of the allegations against Epstein had come out. Trump said that he had known Epstein for 15 years. He called him a terrific guy. Trump went on to say that Epstein's a lot of fun. He said, quote,

it is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do and many of them are on the younger side. End quote. We also know from the files released in 2021 as part of Ghislaine Maxwell's trial that Trump flew on Epstein's plane seven times between Palm Beach and New York City. Trump has repeatedly denied this but again it's been confirmed in the flight logs. Now that's not to say that Trump flew with Epstein but just that he used his plane. We know that one of the logs shows you know Trump was flying with his wife and daughter and son. We don't know the details of all of the flights though. Also, at Maxwell's trial, a woman testified that she met Trump in the 90s at Mar-a-Lago but did not allege any improper behavior by Trump. Another obscene

victim testified that she was 15, working at Mar-a-Lago as a locker room attendant where she was recruited by Maxwell, had met Trump, but never witnessed him doing anything inappropriate. Trump was also sued by a woman ahead of the 2016 election who named Trump and Epstein as co-defendants and alleged that Trump had raped her in the 90s at one of Epstein's parties, but the case went nowhere. The judge dismissed it. The woman dropped her lawsuit two different times.

So in short, from what we know, we know that Trump and Epstein were associated. He knew Epstein. He flew on Epstein's plane seven times between New York and Palm Beach, but he's never been implicated in Epstein's crimes. As for the rest of the Epstein files, we don't know what's in them, so we can't say one way or the other whether Trump is in them. And by the way, when I say Epstein files, I'm referring to a series of files and documents involving Epstein and his alleged accomplices across various lawsuits and investigations. The files include a ton of information,

not just incriminating information, but also victim identities, the names of witnesses, and any other person who came into contact with either suspects or evidence over the years. So there's a lot in there. And the reason we don't know exactly what is in there is because those files have not yet been released. They are still sealed.

They've always been sealed. So it remains a mystery that has led to a lot of speculation and a lot of theories. Earlier this year, the DOJ released what it called phase one of the unreleased Epstein files, but it turned out there was really nothing new there. You know, nothing that wasn't already publicly available. Anonymous sources have said that the DOJ is in the process of preparing a phase two release, but we don't know when that will be. We don't know what will be included.

We don't know whether it's the last of the phases and we don't know if it'll even happen. So that's the deal with that. That is what we know. Moving on to some other news, last week the House Oversight Committee issued a subpoena to former President Biden's White House doctor. This development comes after I previously reported that the House Oversight Committee was expanding its investigation into Biden's mental health

and the use of the auto pen. As we talked about in my recent three-part series about the different branches of the federal government, one of Congress's powers is the power to issue subpoenas in congressional investigations. This serves as a check on the other branches of government, mainly the executive. So that is what we're seeing here.

The letter to Biden's physician, which includes the subpoena, reads in part, quote, "'The committee seeks information about your assessment of and relationship with former President Biden to explore whether the time has come for Congress to revisit potential legislation, to address the oversight of President's fitness to serve pursuant to its authority under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, or to propose changes to the 25th Amendment itself. This investigation also continues to inform the committee about whether additional reforms or enhancements to financial

disclosures of White House employees, including the physician to the president, are necessary." End quote. The letter also states that the committee had requested the physician's appearance at the end of last month, but he refused on the basis that one, his legal obligations under the law prohibit his testimony, two, his ethical obligations under the code of ethics of the American Medical Association prohibit his testimony, and three, the physician patient privilege prohibits his testimony.

The House Committee rebutted each of these arguments in their letter, noting that one, the law only prohibits testimony in the federal courts, but that Congress is not a court. 2. The AMA's code of ethics doesn't apply when the physician is legally ordered to testify. And 3. The physician patient privilege assertion is not supported in federal law. Now, I'm not saying those rebuttal arguments from the committee are correct or true or accurate. I'm just telling you what the sub arguments from the committee are correct or true or accurate. I'm just telling you what the subpoena letter said. So basically the physician's testimony was requested.

The physician turned down that request and now the committee has issued a formal subpoena, which he cannot turn down, although he will likely assert the physician patient privilege for most of the questions that he is asked. If he doesn't appear before the committee, he could be charged with contempt like Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon was in July 2022. You can't just not comply with congressional subpoenas. Let's take our first break here. When we come back, we will talk about Abrego Garcia's return to the United States and more. Welcome back. Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the man mistakenly deported to El Salvador in March, has returned to the United States to face human smuggling charges.

So Abrego-Garcia was arrested by ICE earlier this year due to his alleged affiliation with the MS-13 gang. He was subsequently deported to El Salvador. Following his deportation, his attorneys filed a lawsuit on his behalf, arguing that his deportation violated a previously granted withholding of removal from 2019. In other words, an immigration court had prohibited his removal from the United States because he had adequately shown that he was at risk of persecution and violence if he was returned

to El Salvador. And that's because previously when he lived in El Salvador, his family was harassed by MS-13 gang members. So that is why he was allowed to stay in the United States despite coming here illegally. Meanwhile, the administration acknowledged in a court filing that Abrego Garcia's deportation to El Salvador was a mistake. It said that his removal was the result of an administrative error. Despite that, though, the administration argued

that because of Abrego Garcia's ties or alleged ties to MS-13, he posed a threat to the public in the United States and therefore should not be able to return to the United States. But the judge did not buy that argument. So in April, a district court judge ordered the administration to quote,

facilitate and effectuate the return of a brego garcia to the United States from there the administration did not return a brego garcia and instead took the district court's order to the Supreme Court and what the Supreme Court said is this it said that the district court had properly ordered the administration to facilitate a brego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador, but that ordering the administration to effectuate his return to the United States might have been

an overstep of authority. And that's because the executive has sole authority when it comes to diplomatic relations. Courts cannot intervene in that. So the Supreme Court said that the district court judge needed to clarify what she meant by effectuate Abrego-Garcia's return and ensure that her meaning is in line with the Constitution. And in response to that, the District Court judge clarified that what she meant is that the administration needed

to take all steps available to facilitate Abrego-Garcia's return. Now, the Supreme Court did not review that clarification, but the administration just kind of disregarded it because the administration's argument was, well, the Supreme Court told us that all we had to do was facilitate his release from custody in El Salvador, and it's ultimately up to El Salvador if they want to send him to the United States

since he's now under the jurisdiction of El Salvador's government. So it's out of our hands. We can't do anything more than that. Consequently, a break. Garcia was released from the prison that he was in in El Salvador, but he was not returned to the United States until now. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on Friday that a break. Garcia has returned to the United States after being indicted by a federal grand jury on criminal charges related to human smuggling, in this case alien smuggling. It's important to note that while often confused, human trafficking and human smuggling are two different crimes. So human smuggling involves providing services like transportation or

fraudulent documents to someone who's seeking to gain illegal entry into a foreign country, whereas human trafficking involves exploiting humans for commercial sexual exploitation or forced labor. So he's facing smuggling charges and I'll touch on his actual charges more in a minute and explain what they mean more specifically. But according to Bondi's announcement, quote, the grand jury found that over the past nine years, Abrego Garcia has played a significant role in an alien smuggling ring. They found that this was his full-time job, not a contractor. He was a smuggler of humans and children and

women. He made over 100 trips. The grand jury found smuggling people throughout our country, MS-13 members, violent gang terrorist organization members throughout children and women. He made over 100 trips. The grand jury found smuggling people throughout our country, MS-13 members, violent gang terrorist organization members throughout our country. Thousands of illegal aliens were smuggled." End quote. Bondi also said that a co-conspirator alleged that Abrego Garcia had solicited nude photos and videos from a minor and played a role in murdering a rival gang member's mother. To be clear, these are all allegations, right? Nothing has been proven at this point.

So the investigation that ultimately led to these charges began when federal officials took a closer look at a 2022 traffic stop that Abrego Garcia was involved in. In November 2022, state troopers with the Tennessee Highway Patrol stopped Abrego Garcia for speeding. When the troopers approached his car, they saw that he had eight passengers in the car. The passengers told police that they had been working construction in Missouri and that they were on their way back to Maryland. When asked for their addresses, multiple passengers gave the same address and the troopers noted that not one of the passengers had luggage with them despite you know having allegedly been in Missouri doing construction work and now going back home to Maryland. They also noted there

were no tools or construction equipment in the car. They also noticed that the car a Brago Garcia was driving had been modified with an aftermarket third row of seats that were installed where the cargo area would typically be in the trunk. And according to body camera footage, once the troopers got done talking to Abrego Garcia and the other passengers, they can be heard talking about their suspicions that he was smuggling people into the United States. Despite this though, he was let off with a warning for driving with an expired license. He was not charged. He was not ticketed. So once Abrego Garcia was arrested and deported in March and once that lawsuit was filed seeking to bring him back and the government was trying to avoid bringing him back, that

is when federal officials took a deeper look into this traffic stop. And after investigating a bit further, they brought the case before a federal grand jury and Abrego Garcia was indicted on two charges, alien smuggling and conspiracy to commit alien smuggling and conspiracy to commit alien smuggling. Now, for clarity's sake, a grand jury returns an indictment if they find probable cause that a crime has been committed and that the person being indicted is responsible for that crime.

The government still bears the burden of proving the charges beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. So at the indictment stage, when prosecutors are trying to get a grand jury to return an indictment against someone, they have to show enough evidence to where the grand jury has good reason to believe that a crime has been committed by the person in question. Probable cause is more than a hunch or suspicion, but less than beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard once the defendant actually goes to trial. So in this case,

with the evidence that was shown to the grand jury, the grand jury believed that most likely a crime had been committed and that most likely Abrego Garcia was responsible. So let's talk about the charges, starting with alien smuggling. Federal law makes it a crime for any person to bring or person to bring

or attempt to bring another person to the United States, knowing that person is an alien. Conspiracy to commit alien smuggling is basically working with another person to carry out the crime of alien smuggling. Now, Attorney General Bondi in her press briefing said that these were the two crimes he was charged with. If that's true, there must be more evidence to show that he was actually the one bringing

people across the border because alien smuggling and conspiracy to commit alien smuggling involve actually bringing in or attempting to bring in an alien into the United States. All we know at this point is that he was traveling in a car with eight passengers in Tennessee. According to the passengers, they were driving from Missouri to Maryland. To me, that sounds more like domestic transporting, which is when someone transports or attempts to transport an alien within the United States, either knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact

that the person they're transporting is in the United States illegally. But like I said, perhaps there's more to the story that we don't know. The indictment is still sealed, so unfortunately I can't access it, which means we don't know the specifics of what was involved during the grand jury proceedings

and what evidence was actually presented that led to these charges. From what Bondi told us though, what she said is that the indictment alleges that Abrego Garcia worked with other individuals to transport undocumented aliens for private financial gain. Allegedly, co-conspirators outside of the United States would transport undocumented aliens from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Ecuador, and Mexico and bring them across

the border into Texas. Abrego Garcia would then allegedly pick up the undocumented aliens in the Houston area and transport them to other parts of the United States, which still sounds like domestic transporting to me, but who knows? Abrego Garcia and others he worked with also allegedly required and received payment from undocumented aliens

for facilitating this transportation. The indictment also alleges that Abrego Garcia would occasionally transport narcotics and firearms illegally purchased in Texas for distribution and resale in Maryland, and Abrego Garcia also allegedly transported MS-13 gang members and associates. One co-conspirator also alleged that Abrego Garcia abused some female undocumented aliens. So those allegations are what have been made available to us by Attorney General Bondi, but again once that indictment is unsealed we should know more about what evidence exists and what ultimately led the federal grand jury to to indict Abrego Garcia on

these two specific charges. At the government's request, Abrego Garcia will remain in federal custody in Tennessee while he awaits trial. Once he does face trial, if he is found guilty, he could face a maximum penalty of 10 years per alien that he transported, which according to the allegations could be hundreds of years and in effect would be a life sentence. He could also face deportation. It just depends what the government decides to do should he be convicted. Currently, his next hearing is for June 13th, at which time he'll be

formally arraigned on the charges and it'll proceed accordingly through the justice system. So again, an indictment, which is where we're at in this case, means that a grand jury found based on the evidence they were presented with that most likely Abrego Garcia committed the crimes of smuggling aliens and conspiracy to commit smuggling aliens. From here, the government will have to prove that Abrego Garcia committed these crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a higher standard of proof than what's required for an indictment. In some other news and completely unrelated.

ABC News suspended one of its anchors, Terry Moran, after he posted to X criticizing the president and the White House deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller. So Terry Moran is a senior national correspondent for ABC News and in fact, just a couple of months ago in April, he sat down with the president in the Oval Office to ask him some questions about his first 100 days.

But shortly after midnight on Saturday, Moran posted to X, quote, "'The thing about Stephen Miller is not that he is the brains behind Trumpism. Yes, he is one of the people who conceptualize the impulses of the Trumpist movement and translates them into policy. But that's not what's interesting about Miller. It's not brains, it's bile.

Miller is a man who is richly endowed with the capacity for hatred. He's a world-class hater. You can see this just by looking at him because you can see that his hatreds are his spiritual nourishment. He eats his hate. Trump is a world-class hater, but his hatred is only a means to an end, and that end is his own glorification. That's his spiritual nourishment." That post was soon after deleted. However, the press secretary shared a screenshot of the post to her ex account Sunday morning and wrote, quote, last night in a since deleted post so-called journalist Terry Moran went on a rampage against Stephen Miller and called President Trump a world-class hater. This is unhinged and unacceptable. We have reached out to ABC to inquire about how they plan to hold Terry accountable."

For clarity's sake, Stephen Miller is Trump's White House Deputy Chief of Staff and the Homeland Security Advisor. During Trump's first administration, Miller was one of Trump's senior advisors and the director of speech writing. He's a staunch Republican and was at one time a promoter of project 2020 2025, though later once project 2025 started getting highlighted in the news leading up to the election, Miller's foundation, the America first legal foundation asked to be removed from the list of supporters. So that's a little bit about Miller, but one day after Moran's post, ABC News confirmed that they had suspended Moran. In a statement to other outlets, ABC said, quote, ABC News stands for objectivity and impartiality in its news coverage and does not condone subjective personal attacks on others. The post does not reflect the views of ABC News and violated our standards, end quote.

Notably, this suspension comes less than a year after ABC News settled a defamation suit with President Trump after ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos incorrectly reported that Trump had been found liable for rape when he had actually been found liable for sexual assault. ABC News ultimately agreed to contribute 15 million dollars to Trump's presidential foundation and museum to settle that suit. Let's take our second and final break here when we come back we'll talk about everything that's going on with LA. Welcome back. Now for the story you've

all been waiting for, what the heck is going on in LA? Let's talk about it. This past Friday more than 40 people were arrested during ICE raids in Los Angeles but over the course of the week, more than 100 people were arrested. The protests really started to ramp up after ICE conducted a raid at a Home Depot in the city of Paramount, which is south of LA. And by the way, these immigration enforcement actions are supposed to be happening daily for the next month or so. So this is not something that was like just happening this weekend and is going to stop. It's supposed to continue. In light of these raids and arrests, people in LA started protesting on Friday which carried over into the weekend and while

most protests remained peaceful there were instances of violence, particularly in that city of Paramount. In one instance protesters were throwing things like rocks and cement at police officers which then prompted officers to respond with flashbang grenades and rubber bullets. At one point protesters gathered things like rocks and cement at police officers, which then prompted officers to respond with flashbang grenades and rubber bullets. At one point, protesters gathered outside of a detention center in downtown LA, which led to even more arrests because local police had declared it in unlawful assembly or an area of unlawful assembly. Supposedly, it all came to a head last night when protesters were setting self-driving cars on fire and

police officers were using flashbangs and tear gas to disperse the crowds. All areas of downtown LA are now considered to be an unlawful assembly area, which means that people will be arrested if they try to assemble in any area of downtown LA. According to reporters on the ground, the situation has calmed down a bit as of today, but we do have to kind of back up to really understand what's going on here. So we'll start with Saturday. Like I said, the protest started on Friday, but really started to ramp up, I would say over the weekend on Saturday.

So on Saturday night, one day after these protests broke out, Trump posted a truth social quote, if governor Gavin Newsom of California and mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles can't do their jobs, which everyone knows they can't, then the federal government will step in and solve the problem. Riots and looters the way it should be solved." Shortly after that post, Press Secretary Caroline Levitt announced that Trump signed a presidential memorandum calling for the National Guard to step in, ordering at least 2,000 troops to the LA area. Notably, Trump did say the National Guard troops will play a supporting role,

which meant they would be protecting ICE officers as ICE officers enforce the law, rather than the National Guard enforcing the law themselves. And this language actually ties back to the Instruction Act, which I'll touch on a bit later. So Trump orders the National Guard and Governor Newsom does not agree with that. He posted to X describing the move

as purposefully inflammatory. He said that it will only escalate tensions. In another post, he said, quote, the federal government is taking over the California National Guard and deploying 2,000 soldiers in Los Angeles, not because there's a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle. Don't give them one." He similarly wrote,

California, don't give Donald Trump what he wants. Speak up, stay peaceful, stay calm, do not use violence and respect the law enforcement officers that are trying their best to keep the peace. Saturday night rolls around, Trump writes on Truth Social, quote, Great job today by the National Guard in Los Angeles after two days of violence clashes and unrest. We have an incompetent governor and mayor who were, as usual, unable to handle the task. These radical left protests by instigators and often paid troublemakers will not be tolerated.

Also, from now on, masks will not be allowed to be worn at protests. What do all these people have to hide and why? Again, thank you to the National Guard for a job well done." Governor Newsom then shared that post to X and wrote, "...for those keeping track, Donald Trump's National Guard had not been deployed to the ground when he posted this." And that is true. We did not see, so Trump's post was Saturday.

We did not see any National Guard troops deployed to LA until Sunday morning. Trump signed the memo on Saturday, but troops did not actually arrive in LA until Sunday morning. The first group of troops to arrive was a group of about 300 soldiers who were sent to three different areas of LA. On Sunday, a statement from Democratic governors across the country said, quote, President Trump's move to deploy California's National Guard is an alarming abuse of power. Governors are the commander in chief of their National Guard and the federal government activating them in their own borders without consulting with or working with a state governor is ineffective and dangerous. It's important we respect the executive authority of our

country's governors to manage their national guards. And we stand with Governor Newsom who has made it clear that violence is unacceptable and that local authorities should be able to do their jobs without the chaos of this federal interference and intimidations." End quote. Also on Sunday, so the same day that that joint statement was released,

President Trump answered some questions from reporters. And these answers caused even more questions and concerns. So he was asked, are you planning on invoking the Insurrection Act in California? His answer was that it depends if there's an insurrection. The reporter followed up by asking, do you think there is? And he said no, but you have violent people and we're not going to let them get away with that. He also said the bar for sending Marines in is if he sees danger to citizens. He said it's all about law and order. He referenced a quote that goes like this, they spit, we hit. He said, quote, nobody

is going to spit on our police officers. No one is going to spit on our military. That happens. They're going to get hit very hard. End quote. He was asked by another reporter to define an insurrection. He said, you look at the site and you see what's happening. He was asked whether California officials would face criminal charges if they stood in the way of deportations. And he said, yes, if they stand in the way of law and order, they will face criminal charges.

Newsom then reposted the clip of Trump saying officials would be arrested if they stood in the way of law and order and wrote quote, inciting and provoking violence, creating mass chaos, militarizing cities, arresting opponents. These are the acts of a dictator, not a president. End quote. Following that, Governor Newsom's office sent a formal letter to Defense Secretary Hegseth asking him to pull the National Guard out of LA. The letter argued that the situation was being adequately controlled by local police officers and that federal intervention would only intensify the conflict. The letter said that the president's memo failed to follow the law, which requires deployment orders to be issued

through a state's governor. We'll talk about that more in a minute too. Today, when a reporter asked the president whether Tom Homan, the border czar, should arrest Newsom, Trump said he would do it if he were Homan. This prompted Newsom to write on Axe, quote, "'The president of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting governor. This is a day I hoped I would never see in America. I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican.

This is a line we cannot cross as a nation. This is an unmistakable step towards authoritarianism." End quote. Now, obviously, arresting a sitting governor would be unprecedented. The thing is, even governors, sure, are subject to federal law and obstruction of justice statutes, but there is really nothing you could arrest Newsom on in this situation. He is in charge of his own state for one. And two, there is a real question as to whether President Trump even has the lawful authority to send the National Guard to LA. And if he doesn't have the lawful authority to do that, then there's even, you know, the argument that Newsom couldn't be arrested for anything is even bigger. So let's talk about that. The legalities of the president sending the National Guard into

a state without the governor's approval. First of all, the National Guard is a reserve component of the army, right? These are troops that are ready to step in when extra support is needed. All 50 states plus Washington, D.C. have a National Guard unit. Contrary to its name, there is no national unit. It's not the United States. Yeah, it's not a national unit. Each state has a unit. Hopefully that makes sense. Because of that, state governors are in charge of their National Guard. Typically, we see the National Guard deployed during extreme weather events like hurricanes or wildfires, but they've also been deployed for other recent events of civil unrest like January 6th and the protests and riots in the wake of George Floyd's death.

With that said, it's pretty rare for the president to deploy the National Guard, especially for civil disturbances. In fact, the last time the president deployed the National Guard for civil disturbance was more than 30 years ago in 1992 when George H.W. Bush deployed the National Guard to LA during the Rodney King riots. But that deployment came with the invocation of the Insurrection Act, which we will talk about more in a minute, like I've promised. However, the Instruction Act has not been invoked here. So both state governors and the president can deploy the National Guard,

but the president's authority to deploy the National Guard is extremely limited to certain situations. In their default role, National Guard troops are governed by state law. They exercise state functions at the request of the state governor. In some cases, the National Guard will be used for federal missions, but that can really only be done if A, the president requests that a state governor deploy their troops for federal purposes, or B, the president federalizes the troops,

which can only be done under certain circumstances and is what President Trump did in this case. And I want to say that again, because that's important here. So either for federal missions, either the president has to request that the state governor deploy their troops or the president can federalize the troops, but only in certain situations. And the reason that we use the word federalize is because, like I said, by default, National Guard troops are governed by state law,

exercise state functions, at the request of the state governor. So to federalize troops, certain circumstances have to be present. When the National Guard is federalized, the National Guard comes under the full command and control of the president, though that can also be delegated to the Secretary of Defense. The federal government also takes on all responsibility, including the cost. So sometimes you'll see states actually request the federalization

of the National Guard because it means the federal government carries the cost burden. But typically in most situations either a state governor deploys their National Guard or the president requests that states send in the National Guard and it's up to the states whether they want to abide by that request from the president. They do not have to. For example in 2020 in response to the George Floyd protests and riots, Minnesota's governor deployed his National Guard within a couple days. Then President Trump asked the governors of several other states to deploy their National Guard to help. In response, some states listened to Trump's request and sent in their National Guard, but some states didn't, and they were well within their power to decline.

So while it was Trump who asked these states to deploy their National Guard, but some states didn't and they were well within their power to decline. So while it was Trump who asked these states to deploy their National Guard, it was ultimately up to the state governors. Another example is January 6. Now the thing with January 6, it's a little bit different in that that was Washington, D.C.'s National Guard that was deployed. So the District of Columbia has its own National Guard unit, just like all the other states. But one major difference is that because DC is not a state and doesn't have a governor,

DC's National Guard is actually under the control of the president. And like I said, control can be delegated to the defense secretary. So DC's National Guard was sent to the Capitol, but that was at the lawful direction of the president. And then eventually some state governors also sent in their National Guard units to help. But that's an exception where the president actually does have the direct authority to command the National Guard. That's in DC. A third recent example I can give is Hurricane Helena, North Carolina, right? National troops were deployed in the aftermath of the storm to support and help with damage. Multiple states deployed their National Guard units to North Carolina to help in disaster

relief efforts, but the president was not involved in that. The president is rarely involved. So with that context, knowing what you know about the president's authority versus state governor's authority, let's talk about the legality of Trump deploying the National Guard without Governor Newsom's consent. We know that Governor Newsom did not request the troops, so the only other avenue is for Trump to federalize the troops. But for that to be lawful, certain circumstances have to be present.

To be clear, there is no law that explicitly says the president cannot deploy the National Guard without a governor's consent or request. With that said, as I've said about a hundred times at this point, it is very, very, very rare for the president to do so. The last time that a president deployed the National Guard without a governor's request was in 1965 when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to protect civil rights protesters in Alabama ahead of the civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. However, ahead of federalizing the National Guard in that situation, Johnson had been having conversations with the governor of Alabama about the upcoming march. Now, Alabama's governor didn't necessarily want the president to federalize the Guard,

but Johnson gave him a warning that he would do so if it got to the point where that's what had to be done, and the governor agreed. So a little bit different again than this situation. In this case in LA, Newsom never talked to Trump about the Guard and he's maintained that he never wanted the Guard and that it was never necessary. So what Trump did by sending in the National Guard without first even talking to Newsom is certainly unprecedented, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's explicitly unlawful. So let's talk about that. In sending the troops, Trump used his Title X authority. Title X is what allows for the federalization of the National Guard and places it under the president's authority.

Title X can be invoked in three circumstances. One, the United States is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation. Doesn't apply here. Two, there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the government. Could potentially apply here. Or three, the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States. Could also potentially apply here. However, Title X also states that orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the states.

And we know that Trump did not issue this order through Governor Newsom. So that is certainly a legal gray area in the sense that Title X does not seem to allow for the federalization of the Guard without issuance through a state governor. And that's why Newsom said that Trump's order was unlawful and that's also why California's Attorney General has since filed a lawsuit against the administration. So now it's going to be up to the courts to interpret the law and determine whether sending in the National Guard under Title 10 without the state governor's approval is lawful or unlawful. Now another option

for Trump is invoking the Insurrection Act, which he has not done as of now, but that is what President H.W. Bush did in 1992. The Insurrection Act is an 18th century wartime law that allows a president to deploy military forces during times of rebellion or unrest. Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against US citizens unless the Insurrection Act is invoked or martial law is invoked, okay? But martial law is not, it's not even being talked about right now so we're gonna stick to the Insurrection Act. If the Insurrection Act is invoked, the National Guard can be federalized without issue.

However, like I said, Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act here, and that's why he was very careful about saying the National Guard is being brought into support existing law enforcement, but not to actually carry out the law, because military forces cannot carry out the law against U.S. citizens unless the Insurrection Act has been invoked or martial law is invoked. So I'm going to wrap up this conversation, but what I really want to reiterate is that in nearly all cases when the National Guard is deployed, it happens at the request of a state governor. Presidents typically do not interfere. When a president does get involved, it's almost always because the

state governor asked them to get involved or is at least in communication with the president about it. In this situation, neither of those things happened, so now the courts are going to have to get involved. They're going to have to interpret the law and clarify whether the president has the authority to send in troops unilaterally under Title X. That is going to be the question for the courts. Hopefully that answered most of your questions about what's happening in LA.

If you still have more, please feel free to DM me on Instagram. I'll try to answer them in the next episode, which is on Thursday. Let's wrap up this episode with some quick hitters. The first two actually have to do with ICE. First one, Las Vegas law enforcement is rejoining ICE's 287-G program to detain undocumented immigrants accused of serious crimes. So section 287-G allows local police to

issue or act on a federal immigration warrant by keeping an inmate who is suspected of being in the country illegally and is arrested for criminal activity in the local detention center for up to two days which gives ICE agents more time to take the inmate into their custody. Critics argue this policy reverses prior promises not to engage in immigration enforcement. ICE officers and migrants are currently stranded in a shipping container on a US naval base in South Sudan after a federal judge blocked their deportation flight. So the flight landed in South Sudan after a federal judge blocked their deportation flight. So the flight landed in South Sudan,

but the judge said that the migrants were not allowed to leave ICE custody because they had a right to challenge their removal in court. So ICE had to keep them in custody. And according to a court filing, no one's been able to leave the shipping container and they've all gotten sick with respiratory infections. They didn't get the malaria vaccine before they went.

They eventually got it a couple of days after they arrived, but at that point they were sick. So it hasn't been confirmed that they all have malaria, but they are all sick right now. And the migrants are being housed in the shipping container. ICE agents are able to be relieved by filling teams periodically, but it's just kind of a mess there right now. So that's what's going on there.

Hunter Biden dropped his lawsuit against Fox News that accused the network of unlawfully airing sexually explicit images of him. This case stemmed from a 2022 digital mini series that featured a dramatized mock trial against Hunter Biden about his overseas financial dealings. And in the midst of that trial, Fox News allegedly violated revenge porn laws and defamed him. That's according to the lawsuit. However that lawsuit has now been dismissed. It's actually the second time

Hunter Biden filed and dismissed the same lawsuit against Fox News. And finally a Wall Street Journal investigation revealed that military officials knowingly promoted UFO myths for decades to cover up secret weapons development programs. In one instance during the 80s, an Air Force colonel gave fake pictures of a flying saucer to a bar owner near Area 51. The hoax fueled speculation that the military was experimenting with alien technology when in fact they were conducting stealth fighter operations. That's what I have for you today. I do have a new newsletter going out tomorrow morning so be sure to subscribe if you're not already.

It's on Substack, it is totally free. It's called Unbiased Society and I touch on the top headlines in pop culture, politics, business, health and international news. I always have a link in the show notes that'll take you directly to the sign up page so definitely check it out. Have a great next couple of days.

Thank you so much for being here as always and I will talk to you again on Thursday.